Ethics for the
Information Age
9th edition
MICHAEL J. QUINN
Seattle University
221 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030
Content Management: Tracy Johnson
Content Production: Dr. Rajul Jain, Rajinder Singh
Product Management: Tracy Johnson
Product Marketing: Krista Clark
Rights and Permissions: Rogini Rajendiran, Chandan Kumar,
Vignesh Murugamoorthy
Please contact www.AskPearsonSupport.com with any
queries on this content.
Pearson puts care into the creation of our products. Our
learning materials undergo content reviews to minimize bias
and ensure the content is inclusive, accurate, and relevant.
Please use this link to report instances of bias and
inaccuracies: https://www.pearson.com/report-bias.html
You can learn more about Pearson’s commitment to
accessibility at https://www.pearson.com/us/accessibility.html
Cover Image by: Metamorworks/Shutterstock
Microsoft and/or its respective suppliers make no
representations about the suitability of the information
contained in the documents and related graphics published as
part of the services for any purpose. All such documents and
related graphics are provided “as is” without warranty of any
kind. Microsoft and/or its respective suppliers hereby
disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this
information, including all warranties and conditions of
merchantability, whether express, implied or statutory,
fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In
no event shall Microsoft and/or its respective suppliers be
liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or
any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or
profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other
tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use
or performance of information available from the services.
The documents and related graphics contained herein could
include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors.
Changes are periodically added to the information herein.
Microsoft and/or its respective suppliers may make
improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the
program(s) described herein at any time. Partial screen shots
may be viewed in full within the software version specified.
Microsoft® and Windows® are registered trademarks of the
Microsoft Corporation in the U.S.A. and other countries.
This book is not sponsored or endorsed by or affiliated with
the Microsoft Corporation.
Copyright © 2025, 2020, 2017 by Pearson Education, Inc. or
its affiliates, 221 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. All
Rights Reserved. Manufactured in the United States of
America. This publication is protected by copyright, and
permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to
any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or
transmission in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For
information regarding permissions, request forms and the
appropriate contacts within the Pearson Education Global
Rights & Permissions department, please visit
https://www.pearson.com/global-permission-granting.html.
Acknowledgments of third-party content appear on the
appropriate page within the text.
PEARSON is exclusive trademark owned by Pearson
Education, Inc. or its affiliates in the U.S. and/or other
countries.
Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks
that may appear in this work are the property of their
respective owners and any references to third-party
trademarks, logos or other trade dress are for demonstrative
or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended
to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or
promotion of Pearson's products by the owners of such
marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson
Education, Inc. or its affiliates, authors, licensees or
distributors.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Quinn, Michael J. (Michael Jay), author.
Title: Ethics for the Information Age / Michael J. Quinn,
Seattle University.
Description: Ninth edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Pearson, [2025] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2023057085 | ISBN 9780138238537
(hardcover)
Subjects: LCSH: Electronic data processing—Moral and
ethical aspects. | Information technology—Moral and ethical
aspects. | Computer networks—Moral and ethical aspects. |
Computers and civilization.
Classification: LCC QA76.9.M65 Q56 2024 | DDC 004—
dc23/eng/20240109
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023057085
$PrintCode
ISBN-10: 0138238758
ISBN-13: 9780138238759
Brief Contents
Preface
1 Catalysts for Change
2 Introduction to Ethics
3 Networked Communications
4 Intellectual Property
5 Information Privacy
6 Privacy and the Government
7 Computer and Network Security
8 Computer Reliability
9 Professional Ethics
10 Automation and Globalization
Appendix A: Plagiarism
Appendix B: Introduction to Argumentation
Index
Contents
Preface
1 Catalysts for Change
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Milestones in Computing
1.2.1 Aids to Manual Calculating
1.2.2 Mechanical Calculators
1.2.3 Cash Register
1.2.4 Punched-Card Tabulation
1.2.5 Precursors of Commercial Computers
1.2.6 First Commercial Computers
1.2.7 Programming Languages and Time-Sharing
1.2.8 Transistor and Integrated Circuit
1.2.9 IBM System/360
1.2.10 Microprocessor
1.2.11 Personal Computer
1.3 Milestones in Networking
1.3.1 Electricity and Electromagnetism
1.3.2 Telegraph
1.3.3 Telephone
1.3.4 Typewriter and Teletype
1.3.5 Radio
1.3.6 Television
1.3.7 Remote Computing
1.3.8 ARPANET
1.3.9 Email
1.3.10 Internet
1.3.11 NSFNET
1.3.12 Broadband
1.3.13 Wireless Networks
1.3.14 Cloud Computing
1.4 Milestones in Information Storage and Retrieval
1.4.1 Greek Alphabet
1.4.2 Codex and Paper
1.4.3 Gutenberg’s Printing Press
1.4.4 Newspapers
1.4.5 Hypertext
1.4.6 Graphical User Interface
1.4.7 Single-Computer Hypertext Systems
1.4.8 Networked Hypertext: World Wide Web
1.4.9 Search Engines
1.4.10 Cloud Storage
1.5 Contemporary Information Technology Issues
1.6 Views of Technology
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
2 Introduction to Ethics
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Defining Terms
2.1.2 Rationalizations
2.1.3 Four Scenarios
2.1.4 Overview of Ethical Theories
2.2 Subjective Relativism
2.2.1 The Case For Subjective Relativism
2.2.2 The Case Against Subjective Relativism
2.3 Cultural Relativism
2.3.1 The Case For Cultural Relativism
2.3.2 The Case Against Cultural Relativism
2.4 Divine Command Theory
2.4.1 The Case For the Divine Command Theory
2.4.2 The Case Against the Divine Command
Theory
2.5 Ethical Egoism
2.5.1 The Case For Ethical Egoism
2.5.2 The Case Against Ethical Egoism
2.6 Kantianism
2.6.1 Good Will and the Categorical Imperative
2.6.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Kantianism
2.6.3 The Case For Kantianism
2.6.4 The Case Against Kantianism
2.7 Act Utilitarianism
2.7.1 Principle of Utility
2.7.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Act
Utilitarianism
2.7.3 The Case For Act Utilitarianism
2.7.4 The Case Against Act Utilitarianism
2.8 Rule Utilitarianism
2.8.1 Basis of Rule Utilitarianism
2.8.2 Evaluating a Scenario Using Rule
Utilitarianism
2.8.3 The Case For Rule Utilitarianism
2.8.4 The Case Against Utilitarianism in General
2.9 Social Contract Theory
2.9.1 The Social Contract
2.9.2 Rawls’s Theory of Justice
2.9.3 Evaluating a Scenario Using Social Contract
Theory
2.9.4 The Case For Social Contract Theory
2.9.5 The Case Against Social Contract Theory
2.10 Virtue Ethics
2.10.1 Virtues and Vices
2.10.2 Making a Decision Using Virtue Ethics
2.10.3 The Case For Virtue Ethics
2.10.4 The Case Against Virtue Ethics
2.11 Comparing Workable Ethical Theories
2.12 Morality of Breaking the Law
2.12.1 Social Contract Theory Perspective
2.12.2 Kantian Perspective
2.12.3 Rule-Utilitarian Perspective
2.12.4 Act-Utilitarian Perspective
2.12.5 Conclusion
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
3 Networked Communications
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Spam
3.2.1 The Spam Tsunami
3.2.2 Need for Social–Technical Solutions
3.2.3 Case Study: Anh the Acme Accountant
3.3 Internet Interactions
3.3.1 The World Wide Web
3.3.2 Mobile Apps
3.3.3 How We Use the Internet
3.4 Cryptocurrencies
3.4.1 Features of Cryptocurrencies
3.4.2 Uses of Cryptocurrencies
3.4.3 Sustainability Concerns
3.4.4 Financial Concerns
3.5 Text Messaging
3.5.1 Transforming Lives in Areas with Limited
Infrastructure
3.5.2 Twitter
3.5.3 Business Promotion
3.6 Political Impact of Social Media and Online
Advertising
3.6.1 Political Activism
3.6.2 Macedonian Entrepreneurs
3.6.3 Internet Research Agency
3.6.4 Is Democracy Being Threatened?
3.6.5 Troubling Times for Traditional Newspapers
3.7 Censorship
3.7.1 Direct Censorship
3.7.2 Self-Censorship
3.7.3 Challenges Posed by the Internet
3.7.4 Government Filtering and Surveillance of
Internet Content
3.7.5 Ethical Perspectives on Censorship
3.8 Freedom of Expression
3.8.1 History
3.8.2 Freedom of Expression Not an Absolute
Right
3.8.3 FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
3.8.4 Case Study: Leah’s Blog
3.9 Children and Inappropriate Content
3.9.1 Web Filters
3.9.2 Child Internet Protection Act
3.9.3 Ethical Evaluations of CIPA
3.9.4 Sexting
3.10 Breaking Trust
3.10.1 Identity Theft
3.10.2 Fake Reviews
3.10.3 Online Predators
3.10.4 Ethical Evaluations of Police Sting
Operations
3.10.5 False Information
3.10.6 Cyberbullying
3.10.7 Revenge Porn
3.11 Internet Addiction
3.11.1 Is Internet Addiction Real?
3.11.2 Contributing Factors to Addiction
3.11.3 Ethical Evaluation of Internet Addiction
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
4 Intellectual Property
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Intellectual Property Rights
4.2.1 Property Rights
4.2.2 Extending the Argument to Intellectual
Property
4.2.3 Benefits of Intellectual Property Protection
4.2.4 Limits to Intellectual Property Protection
4.3 Protecting Intellectual Property
4.3.1 Trade Secrets
4.3.2 Trademarks and Service Marks
4.3.3 Patents
4.3.4 Copyrights
4.3.5 Non-fungible Tokens
4.3.6 Case Study: The Database Guru
4.4 Fair Use
4.4.1 Sony v. Universal City Studios
4.4.2 Audio Home Recording Act of 1992
4.4.3 RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia
4.4.4 Kelly v. Arriba Soft
4.4.5 Authors Guild v. Google
4.4.6 Mashups
4.5 Digital Media
4.5.1 Digital Rights Management
4.5.2 Digital Millennium Copyright Act
4.5.3 Secure Digital Music Initiative
4.5.4 Sony BMG Music Entertainment Rootkit
4.5.5 Criticisms of Digital Rights Management
4.5.6 Online Music Stores Drop Digital Rights
Management
4.5.7 Microsoft Xbox One
4.6 Peer-to-Peer Networks and Cyberlockers
4.6.1 RIAA Lawsuits Against Napster, Grokster,
and Kazaa
4.6.2 MGM v. Grokster
4.6.3 BitTorrent
4.6.4 Legal Action Against the Pirate Bay
4.6.5 PRO-IP Act
4.6.6 Megaupload Shutdown
4.6.7 Legal Online Access to Entertainment
4.7 Protections for Software
4.7.1 Software Copyrights
4.7.2 Violations of Software Copyrights
4.7.3 Safe Software Development
4.7.4 Software Patents
4.8 Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Protection for
Software
4.8.1 Rights-Based Analysis
4.8.2 Utilitarian Analysis
4.8.3 Conclusion
4.9 Open-Source Software
4.9.1 Evolution of Proprietary Software
4.9.2 Consequences of Proprietary Software
4.9.3 “Open Source” Definition
4.9.4 Beneficial Consequences of Open-Source
Software
4.9.5 Examples of Open-Source Software
4.9.6 The GNU Project and Linux
4.9.7 Impact of Open-Source Software
4.10 Creative Commons
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
5 Information Privacy
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Perspectives on Privacy
5.2.1 Defining Privacy
5.2.2 Harms and Benefits of Privacy
5.2.3 Is There a Natural Right to Privacy?
5.2.4 Privacy and Trust
5.2.5 Case Study: The New Parents
5.3 Information Disclosures
5.3.1 Public Records
5.3.2 Information Held by Private Organizations
5.3.3 Facebook Tags
5.3.4 Enhanced 911 Services
5.3.5 Rewards or Loyalty Programs
5.3.6 Body Scanners
5.3.7 RFID Tags
5.3.8 Implanted Chips
5.3.9 Mobile Apps
5.3.10 Facebook Login
5.3.11 OnStar
5.3.12 Automobile “Black Boxes”
5.3.13 Medical Records
5.3.14 Digital Video Recorders
5.3.15 Cookies
5.4 Data Mining
5.4.1 Data Mining Defined
5.4.2 Opt-In Versus Opt-Out Policies
5.4.3 Examples of Data Mining
5.4.4 Social Network Analysis
5.4.5 Release of “Anonymized” Datasets
5.5 Examples of Consumer or Political Backlash
5.5.1 Marketplace: Households
5.5.2 Facebook Beacon
5.5.3 Malls Track Shoppers’ Cell Phones
5.5.4 iPhone Apps Uploading Address Books
5.5.5 Instagram’s Proposed Change to Terms of
Service
5.5.6 The Daily Telegraph
5.5.7 Cambridge Analytica
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
6 Privacy and the Government
6.1 Introduction
6.2 US Legislation Restricting Information Collection
6.2.1 Employee Polygraph Protection Act
6.2.2 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
6.2.3 Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
6.3 Information Collection by the Government
6.3.1 Census Records
6.3.2 Internal Revenue Service Records
6.3.3 FBI National Crime Information Center 2000
6.3.4 National Data Exchange
6.3.5 Closed-Circuit Television Cameras
6.3.6 Police Misuse of Facial Recognition Systems
6.3.7 License-Plate Scanners
6.3.8 Police Drones
6.4 Covert Government Surveillance
6.4.1 Wiretaps and Bugs
6.4.2 Operation Shamrock
6.4.3 Carnivore Surveillance System
6.4.4 Covert Activities After 9/11
6.5 US Legislation Authorizing Wiretapping
6.5.1 Title III
6.5.2 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
6.5.3 Electronic Communications Privacy Act
6.5.4 Stored Communications Act
6.5.5 Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act
6.6 USA PATRIOT Act
6.6.1 Provisions of the Patriot Act
6.6.2 National Security Letters
6.6.3 Responses to the Patriot Act
6.6.4 Successes and Failures
6.6.5 Long-Standing NSA Access to Telephone
Records
6.7 Regulation of Public and Private Databases
6.7.1 Code of Fair Information Practices
6.7.2 Privacy Act of 1974
6.7.3 Fair Credit Reporting Act
6.7.4 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
6.7.5 Financial Services Modernization Act
6.8 Data Mining by the Government
6.8.1 Internal Revenue Service Audits
6.8.2 Syndromic Surveillance Systems
6.8.3 Telecommunications Records Database
6.8.4 Potential Harms of Profiling
6.9 National Identification Card
6.9.1 History and Role of the Social Security
Number
6.9.2 Debate over a National ID Card
6.9.3 The REAL ID Act
6.10 Information Dissemination
6.10.1 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
6.10.2 Video Privacy Protection Act
6.10.3 Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act
6.10.4 Freedom of Information Act
6.10.5 Tollbooth Records Used in Court
6.10.6 Carpenter v. United States
6.11 Invasion
6.11.1 Telemarketing
6.11.2 Loud Television Commercials
6.11.3 Requiring Identification for Pseudoephedrine
Purchases
6.11.4 Advanced Imaging Technology Scanners
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
7 Computer and Network Security
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Hacking
7.2.1 How Hackers Get Passwords
7.2.2 Penalties for Hacking
7.2.3 Selected Hacking Incidents
7.2.4 FBI and the Locked iPhone
7.2.5 Case Study: Firesheep
7.3 Malware
7.3.1 Viruses
7.3.2 The Internet Worm
7.3.3 Cross-Site Scripting
7.3.4 Drive-By Downloads
7.3.5 Trojan Horses and Backdoor Trojans
7.3.6 Ransomware
7.3.7 Rootkits
7.3.8 Spyware and Adware
7.3.9 Bots and Botnets
7.3.10 Security Risks Associated with “Bring Your
Own Device”
7.4 Cyber Crime and Cyber Attacks
7.4.1 Phishing and Spear Phishing
7.4.2 SQL Injection
7.4.3 Denial-of-Service and Distributed Denial-ofService Attacks
7.4.4 Internet-of-Things Devices Co-opted for
DDoS Attack
7.4.5 Cyber Crime
7.4.6 Politically Motivated Cyber Attacks
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
8 Computer Reliability
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Data-Entry or Data-Retrieval Errors
8.2.1 Disenfranchised Voters
8.2.2 False Arrests
8.2.3 Utilitarian Analysis: Accuracy of NCIC
Records
8.3 Software and Billing Errors
8.3.1 Errors Leading to System Malfunctions
8.3.2 Errors Leading to System Failures
8.3.3 Analysis: E-Retailer Posts Wrong Price,
Refuses to Deliver
8.4 Notable Software System Failures
8.4.1 Patriot Missile
8.4.2 Ariane 5
8.4.3 AT&T Long-Distance Network
8.4.4 Robot Missions to Mars
8.4.5 Denver International airport
8.4.6 Tokyo Stock Exchange
8.4.7 Direct-Recording Electronic Voting Machines
8.5 Therac-25
8.5.1 Genesis of the Therac-25
8.5.2 Chronology of Accidents and AECL
Responses
8.5.3 Software Errors
8.5.4 Postmortem
8.5.5 Moral Responsibility of the Therac-25 Team
8.5.6 Postscript
8.6 Tesla Version 7.0 (Autopilot)
8.6.1 Introduction
8.6.2 May 2016 Fatal Accident
8.6.3 The Hand-off Problem
8.6.4 Assigning Moral Responsibility
8.7 Uber Test-Vehicle Accident
8.7.1 Introduction
8.7.2 Shift to One Human Safety Operator
8.7.3 Effort to Eliminate “Bad Experiences”
8.7.4 March 18, 2018, Accident
8.8 Boeing 737 MAX
8.8.1 Background
8.8.2 Engineering Challenges and Solutions
8.8.3 Lack of Full Disclosure
8.8.4 Lion Air Flight 610
8.8.5 Consequences of the Lion Air Crash
8.8.6 Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302
8.8.7 Consequences of the Ethiopian Airlines Crash
8.8.8 Financial Impact of Crashes
8.8.9 Moral Responsibility of The Boeing Company
8.9 Algorithmic Bias
8.9.1 Bias in Computer Systems
8.9.2 Image Recognition Systems
8.9.3 Speech Recognition Systems
8.9.4 Impact Pro
8.9.5 Credit Scoring
8.9.6 Predictive Policing
8.9.7 COMPAS
8.9.8 Definitions of Fairness
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
9 Professional Ethics
9.1 Introduction
9.2 How Well Developed Are the Computing
Professions?
9.2.1 Characteristics of a Fully Developed
Profession
9.2.2 Case Study: Certified Public Accountants
9.2.3 How Do Computer-Related Careers Stack
Up?
9.3 Software Engineering Code of Ethics
Preamble
Principles
9.4 Analysis of the Code
9.4.1 Preamble
9.4.2 Alternative List of Fundamental Principles
9.5 Case Studies
9.5.1 Software Recommendation
9.5.2 Child Pornography
9.5.3 Antiworm
9.5.4 Consulting Opportunity
9.6 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
9.6.1 Introduction
9.6.2 Gender Bias in Computing
9.6.3 Inclusive Language and Behavior
9.6.4 Best Practices
9.7 Whistle-Blowing
9.7.1 Morton Thiokol/NASA
9.7.2 Hughes Aircraft
9.7.3 US Legislation Related to Whistle-Blowing
9.7.4 Morality of Whistle-Blowing
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
10 Automation and Globalization
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Automation and Employment
10.2.1 Automation and Job Destruction
10.2.2 Automation and Job Creation
10.2.3 Time versus Possessions
10.2.4 Case Study: The Canceled Vacation
10.3 Breakthroughs in Artificial Intelligence
10.3.1 Introduction
10.3.2 ChatGPT
10.3.3 Deepfakes
10.3.4 Artificial General Intelligence
10.3.5 Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
10.3.6 Case Study: Autonomous Vehicles
10.4 Workplace Changes
10.4.1 Organizational Changes
10.4.2 Remote Work and Hybrid Work
10.4.3 The Gig Economy
10.4.4 Monitoring
10.4.5 Multinational Teams
10.5 Globalization
10.5.1 Arguments For Globalization
10.5.2 Arguments Against Globalization
10.5.3 Dot-Com Bust Increased IT Sector
Unemployment
10.5.4 People from Other Countries Working in the
US IT Industry
10.5.5 International Competition
10.5.6 Electronic Waste
10.6 The Digital Divide
10.6.1 Global Divide
10.6.2 Social Divide
10.6.3 Models of Technological Diffusion
10.6.4 Critiques of the Digital Divide
10.6.5 Online Courses
10.6.6 Net Neutrality
10.7 The “Winner-Take-All” Society
10.7.1 Harmful Effects of Winner-Take-All
10.7.2 Reducing Winner-Take-All Effects
Summary
Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing
Review Questions
Discussion Questions
In-Class Exercises
References
Appendix A: Plagiarism
Consequences of Plagiarism
Types of Plagiarism
Guidelines for Citing Sources
How to Avoid Plagiarism
Misuse of Sources
Additional Information
References
Appendix B: Introduction to Argumentation
B.1 Introduction
B.1.1 Arguments and Propositions
B.1.2 Conditional Statements
B.1.3 Backing
B.2 Valid Arguments
B.2.1 Affirming the Antecedent (Modus Ponens)
B.2.2 Denying the Consequent (Modus Tollens)
B.2.3 Process of Elimination
B.2.4 Chain Rule
B.3 Unsound Arguments
B.4 Common Fallacies
B.4.1 Affirming the Consequent
B.4.2 Denying the Antecedent
B.4.3 Begging the Question
B.4.4 Slippery Slope
B.4.5 Bandwagon Fallacy
B.4.6 Faulty Generalization (Hasty Generalization)
B.4.7 Division Fallacy
B.4.8 The Fallacy of Equivocation
B.5 Unfair Debating Gambits
B.5.1 Red Herring
B.5.2 Ad Hominem Argument
B.5.3 Attacking a Straw Man
B.6 Writing Persuasive Essays
The Government Should Ban Self-Driving Cars
Quiz
Answers to the Quiz Questions
References
Index
Preface
Computers and high-speed communication networks are
transforming our world. These technologies have brought us
many benefits, but they have also raised many social and
ethical concerns. My view is that we ought to approach every
new technology in a thoughtful manner, considering not just
its short-term benefits, but also how its long-term use will
affect our lives. A thoughtful response to information
technology requires a basic understanding of its history, an
awareness of current information-technology-related issues,
and a familiarity with ethics. I have written Ethics for the
Information Age with these ends in mind.
Ethics for the Information Age is suitable for college students
at all levels. The only prerequisite is some experience using
computers and the Internet. The book is appropriate for a
stand-alone “computers and society” or “computer ethics”
course offered by a computer science, business, or philosophy
department. It can also be used as a supplemental textbook in
a technical course that devotes some time to social and
ethical issues related to computing.
As students discuss controversial issues related to information
technology, they have the opportunity to learn from one
other and improve their critical thinking skills. The
provocative questions raised at the end of every chapter,
together with dozens of in-class exercises, provide many
opportunities for students to express their views, learn from
their classmates, and refine their positions on important
issues. My hope is that through these discussions students
will get better at evaluating complex issues and defending
their conclusions with facts, sound values, and rational
arguments.
What’s New in the Ninth
Edition
The most significant change in the ninth edition is the
addition of material that ensures coverage of every
knowledge unit in the Society, Ethics and Professionalism
knowledge area of the beta version of ACM/IEEE-CS/AAAI
Computer Science Curricula 2023, including:
issues related to improving diversity, equity, and
inclusion
algorithmic bias in facial recognition systems, speech
recognition systems, healthcare management systems,
credit scoring, recidivism prediction, and predictive
policing
economies of computing, such as monopolies, open
versus closed platforms, pricing strategies, and
cryptocurrencies
issues related to sustainability, such as resource
consumption of information technology, proof-of-work
versus proof-of-stake algorithms, feedback systems to
promote sustainable behavior, and e-waste
philosophical views of technology, including
instrumentalism, neutrality thesis, pragmatism,
technological determinism, cultural approaches to
technology, and decolonial technical design
The ninth edition also covers many more new developments
and controversies related to the introduction, use, and abuse
of information technology in modern society, including:
breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, including
generative AI (particularly ChatGPT) and AI ethics
detailed examination of the fatal crashes of the Boeing
737 MAX
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on remote work
discussion of ethical rationalizations (also called moral
excuses)
non-fungible tokens as intellectual property
role of social media in George Floyd protests
role of social media in January 6, 2021 assault on US
Capitol
ransomware attacks on Colonial Pipeline
Russia’s cyberattacks on Ukraine
privacy concerns related to machine learning
Finally, I have updated a significant number of facts and
figures throughout the book.
Organization of the Book
The book is divided into 10 chapters. Chapter 1 has several
objectives: to get the reader thinking about how social
conditions can lead to the development of new technologies
and how the adoption of new technologies can lead to social
change; to provide the reader with an introduction to the
history of computing, networking, and information storage
and retrieval; and to help the reader understand how the
introduction of information technology has raised some new
ethical issues.
Chapter 2 is an introduction to ethics. It presents nine
different theories of ethical decision making, weighing the
pros and cons of each one. Five of these theories—
Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, social
contract theory, and virtue ethics—are deemed the most
appropriate “tools” for analyzing moral problems in the
remaining chapters.
Chapters 3–10 discuss a wide variety of issues related to the
introduction of information technology into society. I think
of these chapters as forming concentric rings around a
particular computer user.
Chapter 3 is the innermost ring, focusing on communications
over cellular networks and the Internet. Issues such as the
increase in spam, political activism over social media,
government censorship, identity theft, sexting, revenge porn,
and Internet addiction raise important questions related to
trust, quality of life, free speech, and whether new media are
strengthening or weakening democracies.
The next ring, Chapter 4, deals with the creation and
exchange of intellectual property. It discusses intellectual
property rights; legal safeguards for intellectual property; the
definition of fair use; the impact of digital media, peer-topeer networks, and cyberlockers; software copyrights and
software patents; the legitimacy of intellectual property
protection for software; and the rise of the open-source
movement.
Chapter 5 focuses on information privacy. What is privacy
exactly? Is there a natural right to privacy? How do others
learn so much about us? The chapter examines the electronic
trail that people leave behind when they use a cell phone,
drive a car, search the Web, use social media, make credit
card purchases, open a bank account, go to a physician, or
apply for a loan, and it explains how mining data to predict
consumer behavior has become an important industry. It also
provides several examples where companies have gone too
far with their collection of personal information, and the
consumer or political backlash that has resulted.
Chapter 6 focuses on privacy and the US government. Using
Daniel Solove’s taxonomy of privacy as our organizing
principle, I look at how the government has steered between
the competing interests of personal privacy and public safety.
I consider US legislation to restrict information collection and
government surveillance; government regulation of private
databases and abuses of large government databases;
legislation to reduce the dissemination of information and
legislation that has had the opposite effect; and finally
government actions to prevent the invasion of privacy as well
as invasive government actions. Along the way, I discuss the
implications of the USA PATRIOT Act and the debate over
the REAL ID Act to establish a de facto national
identification card in the United States.
Chapter 7 focuses on the vulnerabilities of networked
computers. A case study focuses on the release of the
Firesheep extension to the Firefox Web browser. A section on
malware discusses viruses, worms, cross-site scripting, driveby downloads, Trojan horses, ransomware, rootkits,
spyware, botnets, and more. The chapter covers phishing,
spear phishing, SQL injection, denial-of-service attacks, and
distributed denial-of-service attacks, and how these tools are
employed by criminal organizations and nation states.
Computerized system failures have led to inconvenienced
consumers, lost income for businesses, the destruction of
property, human suffering, and even death. Chapter 8
describes some notable software system failures, including the
story of the Therac-25 radiation therapy system. It also
covers an important contemporary problem: the safety of
self-driving automobiles. A new section focuses on the
engineering and management decisions leading up to two
fatal crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX. Another new section
defines algorithmic bias, gives seven examples of deployed
computer systems that have exhibited algorithmic bias, and
discusses challenges facing designers who seek to create
systems that exhibit fairness.
Chapter 9 is particularly relevant for those readers who plan
to take jobs in the computer industry. The chapter presents a
professional code related to computing, the Software
Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice,
followed by an analysis of the code. Several case studies
illustrate how to use the code to evaluate moral problems
related to the use of computers. A new section focuses on
diversity, equity, and inclusion: why it is an important topic,
evidence of gender bias in computing, inclusive language and
behavior, and best practices. The chapter concludes with an
ethical evaluation of whistle-blowing, an extreme example of
organizational dissent.
Chapter 10 raises a wide variety of issues related to how
information technology has impacted the world of work and
the distribution of wealth. Topics include automation, the
rise of computerized systems relying on artificial intelligence,
remote work, workplace monitoring, the gig economy, and
globalization. Does automation increase unemployment? Will
improvements in artificial intelligence lead to most jobs being
taken over by machines? Is there a “digital divide” separating
society into “haves” and “have-nots”? Is information
technology widening the gap between rich and poor? These
are just a few of the important questions the chapter
addresses. A new section focuses on the stunning
breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, the capabilities and
limitations of ChatGPT, the rise of deepfakes, perspectives on
artificial general intelligence, efforts to develop guidelines for
AI ethics, and a case study on autonomous vehicles.
Note to Instructors
In March 2023, a joint task force of the Association for
Computing Machinery, the IEEE-Computer Society, and the
Association for Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
released a beta version of Computer Science Curricula 2023
(csed.acm.org/). The report recommends that every
undergraduate computer science degree program incorporate
instruction related to Society, Ethics and Professionalism
through “a combination of one required course along with
aspects integrated into other technical courses” (Computer
Science Curricula 2023, Version Beta, p. 274). Ethics for the
Information Age covers nearly all of the CS Core and KA
Core topics described in the report, with the notable
exception of Professional Communication. Table 1 shows the
mapping between the other knowledge units within Society,
Ethics and Professionalism and the chapters of this book.

Table 1
Name
Chapter(s) or
Appendix
Social Context
3, 8, 10
Methods for Ethical Analysis
1, 2, 9, 10, B
Professional Ethics
8, 9
Intellectual Property
4, A
Privacy and Civil Liberties
3, 5, 6
Sustainability
3, 8, 10
History
1, 10
Economies of Computing
1, 3, 4, 10
Security Policies, Laws, and Computer
Crimes
7
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
1, 8, 9, 10
Mapping between the knowledge units of Society, Ethics and Professionalism in
Computer Science Curricula 2023 and the chapters of this book.

The organization of the book makes it easy to adapt to your
particular needs. If your syllabus does not include the history
of information technology, you can skip the middle three
sections of Chapter 1 and still expose your students to
examples motivating the formal study of ethics in Chapter 2.
After Chapter 2, you may cover the remaining chapters in
any order you choose, because Chapters 3–10 do not depend
on one other.
Many departments choose to incorporate discussions of
social and ethical issues throughout the undergraduate
curriculum. The independence of Chapters 3–10 makes it
convenient to use Ethics for the Information Age as a
supplementary textbook. You can simply assign readings
from the chapters most closely related to the course topic.
Supplements
The following supplements are available to qualified
instructors on Pearson’s Instructor Resource Center. Please
contact your local Pearson sales representative or visit
www.pearsonhighered.com/educator to access this material.
An instructor’s manual provides tips for teaching a
course in computer ethics. It also contains answers to
all of the review questions.
A test bank contains more than 500 multiple-choice,
fill-in-the-blank, and essay questions that you can use
for quizzes, midterms, and final examinations.
A set of PowerPoint lecture slides outlines the material
covered in every chapter.
Feedback
Ethics for the Information Age cites over a thousand sources
and includes dozens of ethical analyses. Despite my best
efforts and those of many reviewers, the book is bound to
contain errors. I appreciate getting comments (both positive
and negative), corrections, and suggestions from readers. You
can reach me through my Web site: www.michaeljquinn.net.
Acknowledgments
I appreciate the support provided by a fine publications team
at Pearson Education, starting with Tracy Johnson, higher
education global content manager, and including associate
content producer Rajul Jain, senior producer Pallavi Pandit,
director of production Ashley Santora, assistant managing
producer Rajinder Singh, and associate analyst Erin Sullivan.
A superb group of reviewers provided me with many helpful
suggestions regarding new material to incorporate into the
ninth edition. Four of them agreed to be recognized publicly.
My thanks to Amy Bruckman, Georgia Tech; Dianne
Hansford, Arizona State University; Richard LeBlanc, Seattle
University; and Kanika Sood, California State University,
Fullerton.
I want to recognize all who participated in the creation of the
first eight editions or provided useful suggestions for the
ninth edition: Paul Anagnostopoulos, Valerie Anctil, Beth
Anderson, Bob Baddeley, George Beekman, Brian Breck,
Maria Carl, Sherry Clark, Nathan Colaner, Thomas
Dietterich, Roger Eastman, Beverly Fusfield, Robert Greene,
Jose Guerrero, Peter Harris, Susan Hartman, Michael Hirsch,
Michael Johnson, Paulette Kidder, Marilyn Lloyd, Pat
McCutcheon, Joshua Noyce, Beth Paquin, Konrad Puczynski,
Brandon Quinn, Courtney Quinn, Stuart Quinn, Victoria
Quinn, Matthew Rellihan, Charley Renn, Gregory Silverman,
Lindsey Triebel, Charles Volzka, Shauna Weaver, and Todd
Will.
Reviewers of previous editions include Ramprasad Bala,
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth; Phillip Barry,
University of Minnesota; Bo Brinkman, Miami University;
Diane Cassidy, University of North Carolina at Charlotte;
Madhavi M. Chakrabarty, New Jersey Institute of
Technology; John Clark, University of Colorado at Denver;
Timothy Colburn, University of Minnesota Duluth; Lorrie
Faith Cranor, Carnegie Mellon University; Lee D. Cornell,
Minnesota State University, Mankato; Donna Maria
D'Ambrosio, University of South Florida; Dawit Demissie,
The Sage Colleges; J.C. Diaz, University of Tulsa; Richard W.
Egan, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Rhonda Ficek,
Minnesota State University Moorhead; Tom Gallagher,
University of Montana; Fred Geldon, George Mason
University; David Goodall, State University of New York at
Albany; Richard E. Gordon, University of Delaware; Mike
Gourley, University of Central Oklahoma; D.C. Grant,
Columbia Basin College; Robert Greene, University of
Wisconsin-Eau Claire; Fritz H. Grupe, University of Nevada,
Reno; Ric Heishman, George Mason University; Micha
Hofri, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; Gurdeep Hura,
University of Maryland Eastern Shore; Musconda
Kapatamoyo, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville;
Christopher Kauggman, George Mason University; Evelyn
Lulis, DePaul University; Tamara A. Maddox, George Mason
University; Aparna Mahadev, Worcester State University;
Eric Manley, Drake University; Richard D. Manning, Nova
Southeastern University; James Markulic, New Jersey
Institute of Technology; John G. Messerly, University of
Texas at Austin; Linda O'Hara, Oregon State University; Joe
Oldham, Centre College; Mimi Opkins, California State
University, Long Beach; Daniel Palmer, Kent State University;
Holly Patterson-McNeill, Lewis-Clark State College; Colin
Potts, Georgia Tech; Jason Rogers, George Mason University;
Medha S. Sarkar, Middle Tennessee State University; Michael
Scanlan, Oregon State University; Robert Sloan, University of
Illinois at Chicago; Matthew Stockton, Portland Community
College; Dorothy Sunio, Leeward Community College; Leon
Tabak, Cornell College; Renée Turban, Arizona State
University; Scott Vitz, Indiana University–Purdue University
Fort Wayne; Todd Will, New Jersey Institute of Technology;
David Womack, University of Texas at San Antonio; John
Wright, Juniata College; and Matthew Zullo, Wake
Technical Community College.
Finally, I am indebted to my wife, Victoria, for her support
and encouragement. You are a wonderful blessing to me, day
in and day out! Thanks for everything.
Michael J. Quinn
Cedar Mill, Oregon
We never know how high we are
Till we are called to rise;
And then, if we are true to plan,
Our statures touch the skies.
The heroism we recite
Would be a daily thing,
Did not ourselves the cubits warp
For fear to be a king.
—Emily Dickinson, Aspiration
I dedicate this book to Shauna, Skyler, Brandon, Courtney,
Bridget, and Claire.
Know that my love goes with you, wherever your aspirations
may lead you.
Chapter 1
Catalysts
for
Change
1.1 Introduction
WE ARE LIVING IN THE INFORMATION AGE. NEVER
BEFORE HAVE SO many people had such easy access to
information. The two principal catalysts for the Information
Age have been low-cost computers and high-speed
communication networks, which have made possible the
development of exciting new technologies, including
smartphones, video streaming services, voice-activated digital
assistants, low-cost drones, and self-driving cars (Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1
Low- cost computers and high-speed communication networks make
possible the products of the Information Age, such as the Samsung Galaxy
S23 Ultra. It functions as a phone, text messager, email client, Web
browser, camera, video recorder, digital compass, and much more.
(Framesira/Shutterstock)
Modern computing and communications systems have
profoundly changed the way we live. In 1950 there were no
more than a handful of electronic digital computers in the
world, and the Internet did not exist. Today we are
surrounded by networked devices containing embedded
microprocessors, and most of us spend many hours every day
engaged with them as we communicate, seek information,
play games, listen to music, or watch videos.
The importance of modern information technology was
dramatically illustrated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Billions of people around the world suddenly found
themselves in lockdown, totally dependent on their digital
devices, not just for news and entertainment, but to do their
jobs or attend school as well [1]. The pandemic also
highlighted the “digital divide.” Students living in homes
with up-to-date computers and high-speed Internet access
were able to engage in online learning, but millions of
students from low-income families could not participate fully
and fell behind in their studies [2].
Our relationship with technology is complicated. We create
technology and choose to adopt it. However, once we have
adopted a technological device, it can transform us and how
we relate to other people and our environment.
Some of the transformations are physical. The neural
pathways and synapses in our brains demonstrate
neuroplasticity: literally changing with our experiences. The
US Surgeon General has warned that frequent use of social
media by adolescents can affect the development of their
brains’ amygdala and prefrontal cortex, increase their
“sensitivity to social rewards and punishments,” and decrease
life satisfaction, particularly for girls aged 11–13 and boys
aged 14–15 [3].
Studies with macaque monkeys suggest that when we satisfy
our hunger for quick access to information through our use
of Web browsers, Facebook, Twitter, and texting, neurons
inside our brains release dopamine, producing a desire to
seek out additional information, causing further releases of
dopamine, and so on, which may explain why we find it
difficult to break away from these activities [4, 5].
Adopting a technology can change our perceptions, too.
More than 90 percent of cell phone users report that having a
cell phone makes them feel safer, but once people get used to
carrying a cell phone, losing the phone may make them feel
more vulnerable than they ever did before they began
carrying one. A Rutgers University professor asked his
students to go without their cell phones for 48 hours. Some
students couldn’t do it. A student reported to the student
newspaper, “I felt like I was going to get raped if I didn’t
have my cell phone in my hand.” Some caregivers purchase
cell phones for children so that a child may call a family
member in an emergency. However, caregivers who provide a
cell-phone “lifeline” may be implicitly communicating to the
children the idea that people in trouble cannot expect help
from strangers [6].
The Amish understand that the adoption of a new technology
can affect the way people relate to each other (Figure 1.2).
Amish bishops meet twice a year to discuss matters of
importance to the church, including whether any new
technologies should be allowed. Their discussion about a new
technology is driven by the question, “Does it bring us
together, or draw us apart?” You can visit an “Old Order”
Amish home and find a gas barbecue on the front porch but
no telephone inside, because they believe gas barbecues bring
people together while telephones interfere with face-to-face
conversations [7].
Figure 1.2


Most of us appreciate the many beneficial changes that
technology has brought into our lives. In health care alone,
computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) scanners have greatly improved our ability to diagnose
major illnesses; new vaccines and pharmaceuticals have

eradicated some deadly diseases and brought others under
control; and pacemakers, hearing aids, and artificial joints
have improved the physical well-being of millions.
New technologies are adopted to solve problems, but they
often create problems, too. The automobile has given people
the ability to travel where they want, when they want. On the
other hand, millions of people spend an hour or more each
day stuck in traffic commuting between home and work.
Commuters frustrated by slow freeway traffic turn to mobile
apps like Waze to find shortcuts, but when too many drivers
follow these apps, long lines at exit ramps can actually
increase freeway congestion for the remaining vehicles, and
cars taking shortcuts can overwhelm side streets and clog
intersections, frustrating local residents [8]. The Web
contains billions of pages and makes possible extraordinarily
valuable information retrieval systems. Even grade-school
children are expected to gather information from the Web
when writing their reports. However, many caregivers worry
that their Web-surfing children may be exposed to
pornographic or violent images or other inappropriate
material. New communication technologies have made it
possible for us to get access to news and entertainment from
around the world. However, the same technologies have
enabled major software companies to move thousands of jobs
to India, China, and Vietnam. The people and economies of
India, China, and Vietnam benefit from the new software
jobs, but computer programmers in the United States
experience a downward pressure on their salaries [9].
We may not be able to prevent a new technology from being
invented, but we do have control over whether to adopt it.
Nuclear power is a case in point. Nuclear power plants create
electricity without producing carbon dioxide emissions, but
they also produce radioactive waste products that must be
safely stored for 100,000 years. Although nuclear power
technology was available, 67 nuclear reactor construction
projects were canceled after the accident at Three Mile Island
in 1979 [10].
Finally, we can influence the rate at which new technologies
are developed. Some societies, such as the United States, have
a history of nurturing and exploiting new inventions.
Congress has passed intellectual property laws that allow
people to make money from their creative work, and the
federal income tax structure allows individuals who create
popular new technologies to accumulate great wealth.
To sum up, societies develop new technologies to solve
problems or make life better, but the use of new technologies
changes social conditions and may create new problems. That
doesn’t mean we should never adopt a new technology, but it
does give us a good reason why we should be making
informed decisions, weighing the benefits and potential
harms associated with the use of new devices. To that end,
this book will help you gain a better understanding of
contemporary ethical issues related to the use of information
technology.
This chapter sets the stage for the remainder of the book.
Electronic digital computers and high-performance
communication networks are central to contemporary
information technology. While the impact of these inventions
has been dramatic in the past few decades, their roots go
back hundreds of years. Section 1.2 tells the story of the
development of computers, showing how they evolved from
simple manual calculation aids to complex microprocessors.
In Section 1.3 we describe two centuries of progress in
networking technology, starting with the semaphore
telegraph and culminating in the creation of an email system
connecting over a billion users. Section 1.4 shows how
information storage and retrieval evolved from the creation
of the Greek alphabet to Google. Section 1.5 discusses some
of the moral issues that have arisen from the deployment of
information technology. Finally, Section 1.6 illustrates how
the way people approach these contemporary moral issues
depends on their philosophical views of the role of
technology in society.
1.2 Milestones in
Computing
Calculating devices have supported the development of
commercial enterprises, governments, science, and weapons.
As you will see in this section, the introduction of new
technologies has often had a social impact.
1.2.1 Aids to Manual
Calculating
Adding and subtracting are as old as commerce and taxes.
Fingers and toes are handy calculation aids, but to
manipulate larger numbers, people need more than their own
digits. The tablet, the abacus, and mathematical tables are
three important aids to manual calculating [11].
Simply having a tablet to write down the numbers being
manipulated is a great help. In ancient times, erasable clay
and wax tablets served this purpose. By the late Middle Ages,
Europeans often used erasable slates. Paper tablets became
common in the nineteenth century, and they are still popular
today.
An abacus is a computing aid in which a person performs
arithmetic operations by sliding counters along rods, wires,
or lines. The first abacus was probably developed in the
Middle East more than 2,000 years ago. In a Chinese,
Japanese, or Russian abacus, counters move along rods or
wires held in a rectangular frame. Beginning in medieval
Europe, merchants performed their calculations by sliding
wooden or metal counters along lines drawn on a wooden
counting board (Figure 1.3). Eventually, the word “counter”
came to mean not only the disk being manipulated but also
the place in a store where transactions take place [11].
Figure 1.3



Mathematical tables have been another important aid to
manual computing for about 2,000 years. A great
breakthrough occurred in the early seventeenth century,
when John Napier and Johannes Kepler published tables of
logarithms. These tables were tremendous time-savers to
anyone doing complicated math because they allowed them
to multiply two numbers by simply adding their logarithms.
Many other useful tables were created as well. For example,
businesspeople consulted tables to compute interest and
convert between currencies. Today people who compute their
income taxes “by hand” use tax tables to determine how

much they owe.
Even with tablets, abacuses, and mathematical tables, manual
calculating is slow, tedious, and error-prone. To make
matters worse, mathematical tables prepared centuries ago
usually contained errors. That’s because somebody had to
compute each table entry and somebody had to typeset each
entry, and errors could occur in either of these steps.
Advances in science, engineering, and business in the post-
Renaissance period motivated European inventors to create
new devices to make calculations faster and more reliable and
to automate the printing of mathematical tables.
1.2.2 Mechanical
Calculators
Blaise Pascal had a weak physique but a powerful mind.
When he got tired of summing by hand long columns of
numbers given him by his father, a French tax collector, he
constructed a mechanical calculator to speed the chore.
Pascal’s calculator, built in 1640, was capable of adding
whole numbers containing up to six digits. Inspired by
Pascal’s invention, the German Gottfried Leibniz constructed
a more sophisticated calculator that could add, subtract,
multiply, and divide whole numbers. The handcranked
machine, which he called the Step Reckoner, performed
multiplications and divisions through repeated additions and
subtractions, respectively. The calculators of Pascal and
Leibniz were not reliable, however, and did not enjoy
commercial success.
In the nineteenth century, advances in machine tools and
mass-production methods, combined with larger markets,
made possible the creation of practical calculating machines.
Frenchman Charles Thomas de Colmar utilized the steppeddrum gear mechanism invented by Leibniz to create the
Arithmometer, the first commercially successful calculator.
Many insurance companies purchased Arithmometers to help
their actuaries compute rate tables more rapidly [11].
English polymath Charles Babbage was intimately familiar
with the manual production of mathematical tables. He
resolved to build a machine capable of automatically
calculating and typesetting table values. In 1822, Babbage
began work on a difference engine to compute polynomial
functions through the method of finite differences. Despite
receiving substantial funding from the British government,
Babbage never completed work on the difference engine.
After the failure of the difference engine project, Babbage
created designs for an Analytical Engine capable of generalpurpose computation, though this machine, too, was never
constructed.
Swedish publisher Georg Scheutz and his son Edvard
developed their own designs for a difference engine and
completed the world’s first printing calculator: a machine
capable of calculating mathematical tables and typesetting
the values onto molds. The Dudley Observatory in Albany,
New York, purchased the Scheutz difference engine in 1856.
With support from the US Nautical Almanac Office,
astronomers used the machine to help them compute the
motion of Mars and the refraction of starlight. Difference
engines were never widely used; the technology was eclipsed
by the emergence of simpler and less-expensive calculating
machines [11].
The United States in the late 1800s was fertile ground for the
development of new calculating technologies. This period of
US history, commonly known as the Gilded Age, was
characterized by rapid industrialization, economic expansion,
and a concentration of corporate power. Corporations
merged to increase efficiency and profits, but the new, larger
corporate organizations had multiple layers of management
and multiple locations. In order for middle- and upper-level
managers to monitor and improve performance, they needed
access to up-to-date, comprehensive, reliable, and affordable
information. All these requirements could not be met by
bookkeepers and accountants using pen and paper to sum
long columns of transactions by hand [12].
To meet this demand, many entrepreneurs began producing
adding and calculating machines. One of these inventors was
William Burroughs, a former bank clerk who had spent long
days adding columns of figures. Burroughs devised a practical
adding machine and offered it for sale. He found himself in a
cutthroat market; companies competed fiercely to reduce the
size of their machines and make them faster and easier to use.
Burroughs distinguished himself from his competitors by
putting together first-class manufacturing and marketing
organizations, and by the 1890s the Burroughs Adding
Machine Company led the industry. Calculating machines
were entrenched in the offices of large US corporations by the
turn of the century [12].
The adoption of mechanical calculators led to the “deskilling” and “feminization” of bookkeeping (Figure 1.4).
Before the introduction of calculating machines, offices were
a bastion of men, and men who could rapidly compute sums
by hand were at a premium. Calculators leveled the playing
field, making people of average ability quite productive. In
fact, a 1909 Burroughs study concluded that a clerk using a
calculator was six times faster than a clerk adding the same
column of figures by hand [13]. As managers introduced
mechanical calculators into offices, they replaced men who
were bookkeepers with women and lowered wages. In 1880
only 5.7 percent of bookkeepers, cashiers, and accountants
were women, but by 1910 the number of women in these
jobs had risen to 38.5 percent [14].
Figure 1.4
Mechanical calculators led to the “de-skilling” and “feminization” of
bookkeeping.
(Science & Society Picture Library/SSPL/Getty Images)
1.2.3 Cash Register
Store owners in the late 1800s faced challenges related to
accounting and embezzlement. Keeping accurate sales records
was becoming more difficult as smaller stores evolved into
“department stores” with several departments and many
clerks. Preventing embezzlement was tricky when clerks
could steal cash simply by not creating receipts for some
sales.
While on a European holiday in 1878, Ohio restaurateur
James Ritty saw a mechanical counter connected to the
propeller shaft of his ship. A year later he and his brother
John used that concept to construct the first cash register,
essentially an adding machine capable of expressing values in
dollars and cents. Enhancements followed rapidly, and by the
early 1900s the cash register had become an important
information-processing device. Cash registers created printed,
itemized receipts for customers, maintained printed logs of
transactions, and performed other accounting functions that
provided store owners with the detailed sales records they
needed.
Cash registers also made embezzlement by clerks more
difficult. The bell made it impossible for clerks to sneak
money from the cash drawer and helped ensure that every
sale was “rung up.” Printed logs made it easy for department
store owners to compare cash on hand against sales receipts
[12].
1.2.4 Punched-Card
Tabulation
As corporations and governmental organizations grew larger
in the late 1800s, they needed to handle greater volumes of
information. One of these agencies was the US Bureau of the
Census, which collected and analyzed information on tens of
millions of residents every decade. Aware of the tedium and
errors associated with clerks manually copying and tallying
figures, several Census Bureau employees developed
mechanical tabulating machines. Herman Hollerith created
the most successful device. Unlike a predecessor, who chose
to record information on rolls of paper, Hollerith decided to
record information on punched cards. The use of punched
cards to store data was a much better approach because cards
could be sorted into groups, allowing the computation of
subtotals by categories. Hollerith’s equipment proved to be a
great success when used in the 1890 census. In contrast to the
1880 census, which had required eight years to complete, the
1890 census was finished in only two years. Automating the
census saved the Census Bureau five million dollars, about
one-third of its annual budget [15].
Other data-intensive organizations found applications for
punched cards. Railroads used them to improve their
accounting operations and send bills out more frequently.
Retail organizations, such as Marshall Field’s, used punched
cards to perform more sophisticated analyses of information
generated by the cash registers at its many department stores.
The Pennsylvania Steel Company and other heavy industries
began to use punched-card technology to do cost accounting
on manufacturing processes.
The invention of sorters, tabulators, and other devices to
manipulate the data on punched cards created a positive
feedback loop. As organizations began using tabulating
machines, they thought up new uses for informationprocessing equipment, stimulating further technological
innovations.
International Business Machines (IBM) is the corporate
descendant of Hollerith’s company. Over a period of several
decades, IBM and its principal competitor, Remington Rand,
developed sophisticated machines based on punched cards:
card punches, card verifiers, card tabulators, card sorters,
and alphabetizers. Customers used these devices to create
data-processing systems that received input data, performed
one or more calculations, and produced output data. Within
these systems, punched cards stored input data, intermediate
results, and output data. In the most complicated systems,
punched cards also stored the program—the steps of the
computational process to be followed. Early systems relied on
human operators to carry cards from one machine to the
next. Later systems had electrical connections that allowed
the output of one machine to be transmitted to the next
machine without the use of punched cards or human
intervention.
Organizations with large data-processing needs found
punched-card tabulators and calculators to be valuable
devices, and they continually clamored for new features that
would improve the computational capabilities and speed of
their systems [12]. These organizations would become a
natural market for commercial electronic digital computers.
Some customers of data-processing equipment used these
systems for nefarious purposes. For example, IBM machines
played an infamous role in the Holocaust. After Adolf Hitler
came to power in Germany in 1933, IBM chief executive
Thomas J. Watson overlooked well-publicized accounts of
antisemitic violence and the opening of concentration camps,
focusing instead on a golden business opportunity. The firm
expanded the operations of its German subsidiary, Dehomag,
built a new factory in Germany, and actively sought business
from the German government. Tabulating, sorting, collating,
and alphabetizing machines and support services provided by
Dehomag allowed the Nazi government to conduct rapid
censuses, identify acknowledged Jewish people and those
with Jewish ancestors, and generate the alphabetical lists of
names needed to efficiently seize their assets, confine them to
ghettos, and deport them to death camps [15].
1.2.5 Precursors of
Commercial Computers
Several computing devices developed during and immediately
after World War II paved the way for the commercialization
of electronic digital computers.
Between 1939 and 1941, Iowa State College professor John
Atanasoff and his graduate student Clifford Berry
constructed an electronic device for solving systems of linear
equations. The Atanasoff-Berry Computer was the first
computing device built with vacuum tubes, but it was not
programmable.
Dr. John W. Mauchly, a physics professor at the University
of Pennsylvania, visited Iowa State College in 1941 to learn
more about the Atanasoff-Berry Computer. After he returned
to Penn, Mauchly worked with J. Presper Eckert to create a
design for an electronic computer to speed the computation
of artillery tables for the US Army. They led a team that
completed work on the ENIAC (electronic numerical
integrator and computer) in 1946. As it turns out, the war
ended before the ENIAC could provide the Army with any
ballistics tables, but its speed was truly impressive. A person
with a desk calculator could compute a 60-second trajectory
in 20 hours. The ENIAC performed the computation in 30
seconds. In other words, the ENIAC was 2,400 times faster
than a person with a desk calculator.
The ENIAC had many features of a modern computer. All its
internal components were electronic, and it could be
programmed to perform a variety of computations. However,
its program was not stored inside memory. Instead, it was
“wired in” from the outside. Reprogramming the computer
meant removing and reattaching many wires. This process
could take many days (Figure 1.5).
F‍igure 1.5
The ENIAC’s first six programmers were women. Every instruction was
programmed by connecting several wires into plugboards.
(Historical/Corbis Historical/Getty Images)
Even before the ENIAC was completed, work began on a
follow-on system called the EDVAC (electronic discrete
variable automatic computer). The design of the EDVAC
incorporated many improvements over the ENIAC. The most
important improvement was that the EDVAC stored the
program in primary memory, along with the data
manipulated by the program. In 1946 Eckert, Mauchly, and
several other computer pioneers gave a series of 48 lectures at
the Moore School. While some of the lectures discussed
lessons learned from the ENIAC, others focused on the
design of its successor, the EDVAC. These lectures influenced
the design of future machines built in the United States and
the United Kingdom.
During World War II, British engineer F. C. Williams was
actively involved in the development of cathode ray tubes
(CRTs) used in radar systems. After the war, he decided to
put his knowledge to use by figuring out how to use a CRT
as a storage device for digital information. In early 1948 a
team at the University of Manchester set out to build a small
computer that would use a CRT storage device, now called
the Williams Tube, to store the program and its data. They
called their system the Small-Scale Experimental Machine.
The computer successfully executed its first program in 1948.
The Small-Scale Experimental Machine was the first
operational, fully electronic computer system that had both
program and data stored in its memory.
1.2.6 First Commercial
Computers
In 1951 the British corporation Ferranti Ltd. introduced the
Ferranti Mark 1, the world’s first commercial computer. The
computer was the direct descendant of research computers
constructed at the University of Manchester. Ferranti
delivered nine computers between 1951 and 1957, and later
Ferranti models boasted a variety of technological
breakthroughs, thanks to the company’s close association
with research undertaken at the University of Manchester
and Cambridge University.
After completing work on the ENIAC, Eckert and Mauchly
formed their own company to produce a commercial digital
computer. The Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation
signed a preliminary agreement with the National Bureau of
Standards (representing the Census Bureau) in 1946 to
develop a commercial computer, which they called the
UNIVAC, for “universal automatic computer.” The project
experienced huge cost overruns, and by 1950 the EckertMauchly Computer Corporation was on the brink of
bankruptcy. Remington Rand bought them out and delivered
the UNIVAC I to the US Bureau of the Census in 1951
(Figure 1.6) [16].
F‍igure 1.6
UNIVAC computer at the US Census Bureau with two operators.
(Mil image/Alamy Stock Photo)
In a public relations coup, Remington Rand cooperated with
CBS to use a UNIVAC computer to predict the outcome of
the 1952 presidential election. The events of election night
illustrate the tough decisions people can face when computers
produce unexpected results.
Adlai Stevenson had led Dwight Eisenhower in polls taken
before the election, but less than an hour after voting ended,
with just 7 percent of the votes tabulated, the UNIVAC was
predicting Dwight Eisenhower would win the election in a
landslide. When CBS correspondent Charles Collingwood
asked Remington Rand for the computer’s prediction,
however, he was given the run-around. The computer’s
engineers were convinced there was a programming error.
For one thing, UNIVAC was predicting that Eisenhower
would carry several Southern states, and everybody “knew”
that Republican presidential candidates never won in the
South. Remington Rand’s director of advanced research
ordered the engineers to change the programming so the
outcome would be closer to what the political pundits
expected. An hour later, the reprogrammed computer
predicted that Eisenhower would win by only nine electoral
votes, and that’s what CBS announced. As it turns out, the
computer was right and the human “experts” were wrong.
Before being reprogrammed, UNIVAC had predicted
Eisenhower would win 438 electoral votes to 93 for
Stevenson. The official result was a 442–89 victory for
Eisenhower [16].
In the United States in the early 1950s, the word “UNIVAC”
was synonymous with “computer.” Remington Rand sold a
total of 46 UNIVACs to government agencies, such as the US
Air Force, the US Army Map Service, the Atomic Energy
Commission, and the US Navy, as well as to large
corporations and public utilities, such as General Electric,
Metropolitan Life, US Steel, Du Pont, Franklin Life
Insurance, Westinghouse, Pacific Mutual Life Insurance,
Sylvania Electric, and Consolidated Edison.
Office automation leader IBM did not enter the commercial
computer market until 1953, and its initial products were
inferior to the UNIVAC. However, IBM quickly turned the
tables on Remington Rand, thanks to a larger base of existing
customers, a far superior sales and marketing organization,
and a much greater investment in research and development.
In 1955 IBM held more than half the market, and by the
mid-1960s IBM dominated the computer industry with 65
percent of total sales, compared to 12 percent for numbertwo computer maker Sperry Rand (the successor to
Remington Rand) [16]. Many people considered IBM to be a
monopoly, and in 1969, the US Department of Justice filed
an antitrust suit against IBM, seeking to break it up into
smaller companies that would compete with each other. The
trial began in 1975 and lasted for more than six years. In
1982, the Department of Justice dropped the lawsuit.
1.2.7 Programming
Languages and Time-
Sharing
In the earliest digital computers, every instruction was coded
as a long string of 0s and 1s. People immediately began
looking for ways to make coding faster and less error-prone.
One early improvement was the creation of assembly
language, which allowed programmers to work with
symbolic representations of the instruction codes. Still, one
assembly-language instruction was required for every
machine instruction. Programmers wanted fewer, higher-level
instructions to generate more machine instructions. In 1951
Frances Holberton, one of the six original ENIAC
programmers, created a sortmerge generator for the UNIVAC
that took a specification of files to be manipulated and
automatically produced the machine program to do the
sorting and merging. Building on this work, Grace Murray
Hopper, also at Remington Rand, developed the A-0 system
that automated the process of linking together subroutines to
form the complete machine code [17].
Over at IBM, John Backus convinced his superiors of the
need for a higher-level programming language for IBM
computers. He led the effort to develop the IBM
Mathematical Formula Translating System, or FORTRAN.
Designed for scientific applications, the first system was
completed in 1957. Many skeptics believed that any
“automatic programming” system would generate inefficient
machine code compared to hand-coded assembly language,
but they were proven wrong: the FORTRAN compiler
generated high-quality code. What’s more, programmers
could write FORTRAN programs 5–20 times faster than the
equivalent assembly language programs. Most programmers
quickly shifted allegiance from assembly language to
FORTRAN. Eventually, other computer manufacturers
developed their own FORTRAN compilers, and FORTRAN
became an international standard [18].
Meanwhile, business-oriented programming languages were
also being developed by several computer manufacturers.
Grace Murray Hopper specified FLOW-MATIC, an Englishlike programming language for the UNIVAC. Other
manufacturers began to develop their own languages.
Customers didn’t like incompatible languages, because it
meant programs written for one brand of computer had to be
rewritten before they could be run on another brand of
computer. In 1959 an extremely important customer, the US
Department of Defense, brought together a committee to
develop a common business-oriented programming language
that all manufacturers would support. The committee wrote
the specification for COBOL. By requiring manufacturers to
support COBOL in order to get defense contracts, the US
Department of Defense helped ensure its widespread
adoption [19].
In the early 1960s, John Kemeny and Thomas Kurtz at
Dartmouth College directed teams of undergraduate students
who developed a time-sharing system and an easy-to-learn
programming language. The Dartmouth Time-Sharing
System (DTSS) gave multiple users the ability to edit and run
their programs simultaneously, by dividing the computer’s
time among all the users. Time-sharing made computers
accessible to more people because it allowed the cost of
owning and operating a computer system to be divided
among a large pool of users who purchased the right to
connect to the system [20].
The development of BASIC, a simple, easy-to-learn
programming language, was another important step toward
making computers accessible to a wider audience. Kemeny
and Kurtz saw BASIC as a way to teach programming, and
soon many other educational institutions began teaching
students how to program using Dartmouth BASIC. The
language’s popularity led computer manufacturers to develop
their own versions of BASIC [20].
1.2.8 Transistor and
Integrated Circuit
Although the British had radar installations at the beginning
of World War II, it became clear during the Battle of Britain
that their systems had inadequate resolution. The United
Kingdom and the United States worked together to develop
microwave radar systems capable of locating enemy planes
more precisely. Microwave radar required higher-frequency
receivers utilizing semiconductors, and in the process of
manufacturing microwave radar systems for the war effort,
several US companies, including AT&T, greatly improved
their ability to create semiconductors [21].
AT&T was on the lookout for a new technology to replace
the vacuum tube. Its long-distance network relied on vacuum
tubes to amplify signals, but the tubes required a lot of
power, generated a lot of heat, and burned out like
lightbulbs. After the war, AT&T put together a team of Bell
Labs scientists, led by Bill Shockley, to develop a
semiconductor substitute for the vacuum tube. In 1948 Bell
Labs announced the invention of such a device, which they
called the transistor [22].
While most electronics companies ignored the invention of
the transistor, Bill Shockley understood its potential. He left
Bell Labs and moved to Palo Alto, California, where he
founded Shockley Semiconductor in 1956. He hired an
exceptional team of engineers and physicists, but many
disliked his heavy-handed management style [22]. In
September 1957, eight of Shockley’s most talented
employees, including Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce,
walked out. The group, soon to be known as the “traitorous
eight,” founded Fairchild Semiconductor. By this time
transistors were being used in a wide variety of devices, from
transistor radios to computers. While transistors were far
superior to vacuum tubes, they were still too big for some
applications. Fairchild Semiconductor set out to produce a
single semiconductor device containing transistors,
capacitors, and resistors; in other words, an integrated
circuit. Another firm, Texas Instruments, was on the same
mission. Today Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor
and Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments are credited for
independently inventing the integrated circuit [23].
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet
Union played an important role in advancing integrated
circuit technology. US engineers developing the Minuteman II
ballistic missile in the early 1960s decided to use integrated
circuits to improve the processing speed of its guidance
computer. The Minuteman II program was the single largest
consumer of integrated circuits in the United States between
1962 and 1965, representing about 20 percent of total sales.
During these years companies learned how to make rugged,
reliable integrated circuits [11]. They also continued to shrink
the components within the integrated circuits, leading to an
exponential increase in their power. Gordon Moore noted
this trend in a 1965 paper and predicted it would continue.
Today Moore’s law refers to the phenomenon that the
number of transistors in the most powerful integrated circuits
doubles roughly every two years.
1.2.9 IBM System/360
The integrated circuit made possible the construction of
much more powerful and reliable computers. The 1960s was
the era of mainframe computers—large computers designed
to serve the data-processing needs of large businesses.
Mainframe computers enabled enterprises to centralize all
their data-processing applications in a single system. As we
have seen, by this time IBM dominated the mainframe
market in the United States.
In 1964 IBM unveiled the System/360, a series of 19
compatible computers with varying levels of computing speed
and memory capacity (Figure 1.7). Because the systems were
software compatible, a business could upgrade its computer
without having to rewrite its application programs. This
feature was important, because by the 1960s companies were
making much larger investments in software.
F‍igure 1.7
In the 1960s, IBM dominated the mainframe computer market in the
United States.
(H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Alamy Stock Photo)
1.2.10 Microprocessor
In 1968 Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore left Fairchild
Semiconductor to found another semiconductor
manufacturing company, which they named Intel. A year
later Japanese calculator manufacturer Busicom approached
Intel about designing 12 custom chips for use in a new
scientific calculator. Intel agreed to provide the chips and
assigned responsibility for the project to Marcian “Ted”
Hoff. After reviewing the project, Hoff suggested that it was
not in Intel’s best interest to manufacture a custom chip for
every customer. As an alternative, he suggested that Intel
create a general-purpose chip that could be programmed to
perform a wide variety of tasks. Each customer could then
program the chip to meet its particular needs. Intel and
Busicom agreed to the plan, which reduced the required
number of chips for Busicom’s calculator from 12 to 4. A
year of development by Ted Hoff, Stanley Mazor, and
Federico Faggin led to the release of the Intel 4004, the
world’s first microprocessor. Inside the 1/8-inch × 1/6-inch
chip were 2,300 transistors, giving the Intel 4004 the same
computing power as the ENIAC, which had occupied 3,000
cubic feet.
Microprocessors made it possible to integrate computers into
everyday devices. Today we’re surrounded by devices
containing microprocessors: smartphones, streaming media
players, smart speakers with voice-controlled personal
assistants, learning thermostats, video doorbells, augmented
reality glasses, self-driving cars, and much more. The highestprofile use of microprocessors, however, is in personal
computers.
1.2.11 Personal Computer
During the Vietnam conflict in the late 1960s and early
1970s, the area around San Francisco was home to a
significant counterculture, including a large number of
antiwar and antiestablishment activists. The do-it-yourself
idealism of the power-to-the-people movement intersected
with advances in computer technology in a variety of ways,
including the Whole Earth Catalog, the People’s Computer
Company, and the Homebrew Computer Club [24].
The Whole Earth Catalog, first published in 1968, was, in
the words of Steve Jobs, “sort of like Google in paperback
form” [25] —an effort to pull together in a single large
volume lists of helpful tools, in this case for the creation of a
more just and environmentally sensitive society. The
definition of “tools” was broad; the catalog’s lists included
books, classes, garden tools, camping equipment, and (in
later issues) early personal computers. “With the Whole
Earth Catalog, Stewart Brand offered a generation of
computer engineers and programmers an alternative vision of
technology as a tool for individual and collective
transformation” [26, p. 104].
The People’s Computer Company was a not-for-profit
corporation dedicated to educating people on how to use
computers. One of its activities was publishing a newspaper.
The cover of the first issue read: “Computers are mostly used
against people instead of for people, used to control people
instead of to free them, time to change all that—we need a
People’s Computer Company” [27]. Typical issues contained
programming tips and the source code to programs,
particularly educational games written in BASIC. The
newspaper’s publisher, Bob Albrecht, said, “I was heavily
influenced by the Whole Earth Catalog. I wanted to give
away ideas” [26, p. 114]. The People’s Computer Company
also set up the People’s Computer Center in a strip mall in
Menlo Park, California. The center allowed people to rent
teletype terminals connected to a timeshared computer. A
large number of teenagers were drawn to computing through
Friday evening game-playing sessions. Many users wrote their
own programs, and the center promoted a culture in which
computer enthusiasts freely shared software with each other.
In 1975 the Homebrew Computer Club, an outgrowth of the
People’s Computer Company, became a meeting place for
hobbyists interested in building personal computers out of
microprocessors. A company in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
called MITS had recently begun shipping the Altair 8800
personal computer, and during the first few Homebrew
Computer Club meetings, members showed off various
enhancements to the Altair 8800. Progress was frustratingly
slow, however, due to the lack of a higher-level programming
language.
Three months after the establishment of the Homebrew
Computer Club, MITS representatives visited Palo Alto,
California, to demonstrate the Altair 8800 and the BASIC
interpreter created by Paul Allen and Bill Gates, who had a
tiny company called Micro-Soft. The audience in the hotel
conference room was far larger than expected, and during the
overcrowded and chaotic meeting somebody acquired a
paper tape containing the source code to Altair BASIC. More
than 70 copies of the tape were handed out at the next
meeting of the Homebrew Computer Club. After that, free
copies of the interpreter proliferated. Some hobbyists felt that
the asking price of $500 for the BASIC interpreter was too
high, considering that the Altair computer itself cost only
$395 as a kit or $495 preassembled [24].
Bill Gates responded by writing “An Open Letter to
Hobbyists,” which was reprinted in a variety of publications.
In the letter he asserted that less than 10 percent of all Altair
owners had purchased BASIC, even though far more people
than that were using it. According to Gates, the royalties
Micro-Soft had received from Altair BASIC made the time
spent on the software worth less than $2 an hour. He wrote,
“Nothing would please me more than being able to hire 10
programmers and deluge the hobby market with good
software,” but the theft of software created “very little
incentive” for his company to release new products [24].
The controversy over Altair BASIC did not slow the pace of
innovations. Hobbyists wanted to do more than flip the
toggle switches and watch the lights blink on the Altair 8800.
Steve Wozniak, a computer engineer at Hewlett-Packard,
created a more powerful personal computer that supported
keyboard input and television monitor output. Wozniak’s
goal was to make a machine for himself and to impress other
members of the Homebrew Computer Club, but his friend
Steve Jobs thought of a few improvements and convinced
Wozniak they should go into business (Figure 1.8). They
raised $1,300 by selling Jobs’s Volkswagen van and
Wozniak’s Hewlett-Packard scientific calculator, launching
Apple Computer. Although the company sold only 200 Apple
I computers, its next product, the Apple II, became one of the
most popular personal computers of all time.
F‍igure 1.8
Steve Jobs (right) convinced Steve Wozniak (left) they should go into
business selling the personal computer Wozniak designed. They named
their company Apple Computer.
(Kimberly White/Reuters)
By the end of the 1970s, many companies, including Apple
Computer and Tandy, were producing personal computers.
While hundreds of thousands of people bought personal
computers for home use, businesses were reluctant to move
to the new computer platform. However, two significant
developments made personal computers more attractive to
businesses.
The first development was the computer spreadsheet
program. For decades firms had used spreadsheets to make
financial predictions. Manually computing spreadsheets was
monotonous and error-prone, since changing a value in a
single cell could require updating many other cells. In the fall
of 1979, Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston released their
program, called VisiCalc, for the Apple II. VisiCalc’s laborsaving potential was obvious to businesses. After a slow start,
it quickly became one of the most popular application
programs for personal computers. Sales of the Apple II
computer increased significantly after the introduction of
VisiCalc.
The second development was the release of the IBM PC in
1981. The IBM name exuded reliability and respectability,
making it easier for companies to make the move to desktop
systems for their employees. As the saying went, “Nobody
ever got fired for buying from IBM.” In contrast to the
approach taken by Apple Computer, IBM decided to make its
PC an open architecture, meaning the system was built from
off-the-shelf parts and other companies could manufacture
“clones” with the same functionality. This decision helped to
make the IBM PC the dominant personal computer
architecture.
The success of IBM-compatible PCs fueled the growth of
Microsoft. In 1980 IBM contracted with Microsoft to
provide the DOS operating system for the IBM PC. Microsoft
let IBM have DOS for practically nothing, but in return IBM
gave Microsoft the right to collect royalties from other
companies manufacturing PC-compatible computers.
Microsoft profited handsomely from this arrangement when
PC-compatibles manufactured by other companies gained
more than 80 percent of the PC market [28].
1.3 Milestones in
Networking
In the early nineteenth century, the United States fell far
behind Europe in networking technology. The French had
begun constructing a network of telegraph towers in the
1790s, and 40 years later there were towers all over the
European continent (Figure 1.9). At the top of each tower
was a pair of semaphores. Operators raised and lowered the
semaphores; each pattern corresponded to a letter or symbol.
A message initiated at one tower would be seen by another
tower within viewing distance. The receiving tower would
then repeat the message for the next tower in the network,
and so on. This optical telegraph system could transmit
messages at the impressive rate of about 350 miles per hour
when skies were clear.
F‍igure 1.9



In 1837 Congress asked for proposals to create a telegraph
system between New York and New Orleans. It received one
proposal based on proven European technology. Samuel
Morse submitted a radically different proposal. He suggested
constructing a telegraph system that used electricity to
communicate the signals. Let’s step back and review some of 
the key discoveries and inventions that enabled Morse to
make his dramatic proposal.
1.3.1 Electricity and
Electromagnetism
Amber is a hard, translucent, yellowish-brown fossil resin
often used to make beads and other ornamental items. About
2,600 years ago the Greeks discovered that if you rub amber,
it becomes charged with a force enabling it to attract light
objects such as feathers and dried leaves. The Greek word for
amber is ηλ∈κτρων (electron). Our word “electric” literally
means “like amber.”
For more than 2,000 years, amber’s ability to attract other
materials was seen as a curiosity with no practical value, but
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries scientists began to
study electricity in earnest. Alessandro Volta, a professor of
physics at the University of Pavia, made a key breakthrough
when he discovered that electricity could be generated
chemically. He produced an electric current by submerging
two different metals close to each other in an acid. In 1799
Volta used this principle to create the world’s first battery.
Volta’s battery produced an electric charge more than 1,000
times as powerful as that produced by rubbing amber.
Scientists soon put this power to practical use.
In 1820 Danish physicist Christian Oersted discovered that
an electric current creates a magnetic field. Five years later
British electrician William Sturgeon constructed an
electromagnet by coiling wire around a horseshoe-shaped
piece of iron. When he ran an electric current through the
coil, the iron became magnetized. Sturgeon showed how a
single battery was capable of producing a charge strong
enough to pick up a nine-pound metal object.
In 1830 US professor Joseph Henry rigged up an experiment
that showed how a telegraph machine could work. He strung
a mile of wire around the walls of his classroom at the
Albany Academy. At one end he placed a battery; at the other
end he connected an electromagnet, a pivoting metal bar, and
a bell. When Henry connected the battery, the electromagnet
attracted the metal bar, causing it to ring the bell.
Disconnecting the battery allowed the bar to return to its
original position. In this way he could produce a series of
rings.
1.3.2 Telegraph
Samuel Morse, a professor of arts and design at New York
University, worked on the idea of a telegraph during most of
the 1830s, and in 1838 he patented his design of a telegraph
machine. The US Congress did not approve Morse’s proposal
in 1837 to construct a New York–to–New Orleans telegraph
system, but it did not fund any of the other proposals either.
Morse persisted with his lobbying, and in 1843 Congress
appropriated $30,000 to Morse for the construction of a 40-
mile telegraph line between Washington, DC, and Baltimore,
Maryland.
On May 1, 1844, the Whig party convention in Baltimore
nominated Henry Clay for president. The telegraph line had
been completed to Annapolis Junction at that time. A courier
hand-carried a message about Clay’s nomination from
Baltimore to Annapolis Junction, where it was telegraphed to
Washington. This was the first news reported via telegraph.
The line officially opened on May 24. Morse, seated in the
old Supreme Court chamber inside the US Capitol, sent his
partner in Baltimore a verse from the Bible: “What hath God
wrought?”
The value of the telegraph was immediately apparent, and the
number of telegraph lines quickly increased. By 1846
telegraph lines connected Washington, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, New York, Buffalo, and Boston. In 1850
twenty different companies operated 12,000 miles of
telegraph lines. The first transcontinental telegraph line was
completed in 1861, putting the Pony Express out of business
(Figure 1.10). The telegraph was the sole method of rapid
long-distance communication until 1877. By this time the
United States was networked by more than 200,000 miles of
telegraph wire [29].
F‍igure 1.10
Pony Express riders lost their jobs when the US transcontinental telegraph
line was completed in 1861.
(North Wind Picture Archives/Alamy Stock Photo)
The telegraph was a versatile tool, and people kept finding
new applications for it. For example, by 1870 fire-alarm
telegraphs were in use in 75 major cities in the United States.
New York City alone had 600 fire-alarm telegraphs. When a
person pulled the lever of the alarm box, it automatically
transmitted a message identifying its location to a fire station.
These devices greatly improved the ability of fire departments
to dispatch equipment quickly to the correct location [29].
1.3.3 Telephone
Alexander Graham Bell was born in Edinburgh, Scotland,
into a family focused on elocution and the correction of
speech. His mother was almost completely deaf. Bell was
educated to follow in the same career path as his father and
grandfather, and he became a teacher of deaf students. Later,
he married a deaf woman.
Bell pursued inventing as a means of achieving financial
independence. At first he focused on making improvements
to the telegraph. A significant problem with early telegraph
systems was that a single wire could transmit only one
message at a time. If multiple messages could be sent
simultaneously along the same wire, communication delays
would be reduced, and the value of the entire system would
increase.
Bell’s solution to this problem was called a harmonic or
musical telegraph. If you imagine hearing Morse code, it’s
obvious that all of the dots and dashes are the same note
played for a shorter or longer period of time. The harmonic
telegraph assigned a different note (different sound
frequency) to each message. At the receiving end, different
receivers could be tuned to respond to different notes, as you
can tune your radio to hear only what is broadcast by a
particular station. In this way, a single telegraph wire could
carry multiple messages simultaneously.
Bell knew that the human voice is made up of sounds at
many different frequencies. From his work on the harmonic
telegraph, he speculated that it should be possible to capture
and transmit human voice over a wire. He and Thomas A.
Watson succeeded in transmitting speech electronically in
1876. Soon after, they commercialized their invention.
Nearly all early telephones were installed in businesses.
Leasing a telephone was expensive, and most people focused
on its commercial value rather than its social value. However,
the number of phones placed in homes increased rapidly in
the 1890s, after Bell’s first patent expired.
Once telephones were placed in the home, the traditional
boundaries between private family life and public business
life became blurred. People enjoyed being able to conduct
business transactions from the privacy of their home, but
they also found that a ringing telephone could be an
unwelcome interruption [30].
Another consequence of the telephone was that it eroded
traditional social hierarchies. An 1897 issue of Western
Electrician reports that Governor Chauncey Depew of New
York was receiving unwanted phone calls from ordinary
citizens: “Every time they see anything about him in the
newspapers, they call and tell him what a ‘fine letter he
wrote’ or ‘what a lovely speech he made,’ or ask if this or
that report is true; and all this from people who, if they came
to his office, would probably never say more than ‘Good
morning’” [31].
People also worried about the loss of privacy brought about
by the telephone. In 1877 the New York Times reported that
telephone workers responsible for operating an early system
in Providence, Rhode Island, overheard many confidential
conversations. The writer fretted that telephone
eavesdropping would make it dangerous for anyone in
Providence to accept nomination for public office [30].
The telephone enabled the creation of the first “online”
communities. In rural areas the most common form of phone
service was the party line: a single circuit connecting multiple
phones to the telephone exchange. Party lines enabled
farmers to gather by their phones every evening to talk about
the weather and exchange gossip [32].
The power of this new medium was demonstrated in the
Bryan/McKinley presidential election of 1896. For the first
time, presidential election returns were transmitted directly
into people’s homes. “Thousands sat with their ear glued to
the receiver the whole night long, hypnotized by the
possibilities unfolding to them for the first time” [33].
1.3.4 Typewriter and
Teletype
For hundreds of years people dreamed of a device that would
allow an individual to produce a document that looked as if
it had been typeset, but the dream was not realized until
1867, when Christopher Sholes, Carlos Glidden, and Samuel
Soule patented the first typewriter. In late 1873 Remington
& Sons Company, famous for guns and sewing machines,
produced the first commercial typewriter. It was difficult to
use and was not well received; Remington & Co. sold only
5,000 machines in the first five years. However, the
typewriter did get the attention of Mark Twain, who used it
to produce Tom Sawyer, which may have been the world’s
first typewritten manuscript. By 1890 more reliable
typewriters were being produced, and the typewriter became
a common piece of office equipment [34].
In 1908 Charles and Howard Krum succeeded in testing an
experimental machine that allowed a modified typewriter to
print a message transmitted over a telegraph line. They called
their invention the teletype. During the 1920s, news
organizations began using teletype machines to transmit
stories between distant offices, and Wall Street firms began
sending records of stock transactions over teletypes.
1.3.5 Radio
Earlier we described how the experiments of Oersted,
Sturgeon, and Henry led to the development of the
electromagnet and the telegraph. The connection between
electricity and magnetism remained mysterious, however,
until Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell published a
mathematical theory demonstrating their relationship. This
theory predicted the existence of an electromagnetic wave
spreading with the velocity of light. It also predicted that
light itself was an electromagnetic phenomenon. In 1885
Heinrich Hertz successfully generated electromagnetic waves,
proving the correctness of Maxwell’s theory.
Guglielmo Marconi put Hertz’s discovery to practical use by
successfully transmitting radio signals in the hills outside
Bologna, Italy, in 1895. Unable to attract the attention of the
Italian government, he took his invention to England, where
he founded the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company. The
name of the company reflects Marconi’s concept of how his
invention would be used. To Marconi, radio, or “wireless,”
was a superior way to transmit telegraph messages.
David Sarnoff emigrated from Russia to the United States
with his family when he was nine. When he had completed
school, he landed a position with the Marconi Wireless
Telegraph Company. In 1912 Sarnoff made a name for
himself when his post—the wireless station at the
Wanamaker department store in New York City—relayed
news about the sinking of the Titanic. Four years later,
Sarnoff suggested the use of radio as an entertainment device,
writing: “I have in mind a plan of development which would
make radio a household utility in the same sense as the piano
or phonograph. . . . The receiver can be designed in the form
of a simple music box . . . [which] can be placed in the parlor
or living room” [35]. In two decades, Sarnoff’s vision had
become a reality.
The power of radio as a medium of mass communication was
demonstrated on the evening of October 30, 1938 (the night
before Halloween). From CBS Radio Studio One in New
York City, Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater put on a
one-hour dramatization of H. G. Wells’s War of the Worlds.
To increase suspense, the play was performed as a series of
news bulletins interrupting a concert of dance music. These
bulletins described events occurring on a farm near Grovers
Mill, New Jersey. Many listeners panicked. “People packed
the roads, hid in cellars, loaded guns, even wrapped their
heads in wet towels as protection from Martian poison gas,
oblivious to the fact that they were acting out the role of the
panic-stricken public that actually belonged in a radio play”
[36].
1.3.6 Television
Broadcasting video over a wire began in 1884 with the
invention of an electromechanical television by Paul Nipkow,
but the first completely electronic television transmission was
made in 1927 by Philo Farnsworth. Millions of Americans
were formally introduced to the television at the 1939
World’s Fair held in New York City, which had as its theme
“The World of Tomorrow.” Since an early retail television
set cost about as much as an automobile, televisions
remained a rarity in US households until the 1950s, when
prices fell dramatically.
Television’s ability to send a message around the world was
demonstrated in July 1969. Hundreds of millions of people
watched on live TV as US astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped
from the lunar module onto the surface of the Moon (Figure
1.11).
F‍igure 1.11
On July 20, 1969, television images of Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon
were broadcast to hundreds of millions of viewers around the world.
(Courtesy of NASA)
Television has created many opportunities for “news junkies”
to get their fixes. The major commercial broadcast television
networks have been supplemented by Fox, CNN, and other
cable news organizations as well as a myriad of Web sites.
The various organizations compete with one another to be
the first to break news stories. Increasingly, the media have
turned to computer technology to help them provide
information to the public. Sometimes this has led to
embarrassing mistakes, as in the 2000 US presidential
election.
At about 7:50 p.m. on the evening of Tuesday, November 7,
2000, before the polls had even closed in the Florida
panhandle, the major networks began announcing that Al
Gore would be the winner in Florida. Based on the expected
result of the Florida election, the networks went on to predict
—while people were still voting in the Western states—that
Al Gore would be the next president of the United States.
You might be wondering how it is possible to predict the
outcome of an election before everyone has voted. In a
practice known as exit polling, a company called Voter News
Service questions people leaving polling places. It combines
the information it collects with early returns to predict the
outcome of elections. Since 1988 the television networks have
relied upon the Voter News Service to provide them with exit
polling results.
As it turns out, Voter News Service’s prediction was wrong.
More than a month after the election, after a series of
recounts and court decisions, George W. Bush was declared
the victor in Florida. With Florida’s electoral votes in hand,
Bush won the presidency.
1.3.7 Remote Computing
Working at his kitchen table in 1937, Bell Labs researcher
George Stibitz built a binary adder out of telephone relays,
batteries, flashlight bulbs, tin strips, and wire. He took his
invention back to Bell Labs and enlisted the help of Samuel
Williams. Over the next two years they built the Complex
Number Calculator, an electromechanical system that would
add, subtract, multiply, and divide complex numbers.
Stibitz’s next action is what sets him apart from other
computer pioneers. He made a teletype machine the
input/output device for the Complex Number Calculator.
With this innovation, he did not have to be in the same room
as the calculator to use it; he could operate it remotely.
In 1940 Stibitz demonstrated remote computing to members
of the American Mathematical Society who were meeting at
Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. He typed numbers
into the teletype, which transmitted the data 250 miles to the
calculator in New York City. After the calculator had
computed the answer, it transmitted the data back to the
teletype, which printed the result.
1.3.8 ARPANET
In reaction to the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in
1957, the Department of Defense created the Advanced
Research Projects Agency (ARPA). ARPA funded research
and development at prominent universities. The agency’s first
director, J. C. R. Licklider, imagined a “galactic network”—a
global computer network that would facilitate the exchange
of programs and data.1 This view of the computer as a device
to improve communication was in stark contrast to the mindset of computer manufacturers, which continued to think of
computers as number-crunching machines.
Conventional circuit-switched telephone networks were not a
good foundation upon which to build a global computer
network (Figure 1.12a). Between 1961 and 1967, three
research teams independently came up with an alternative to
circuit-switched networks. These teams were led by Donald
Davies and Roger Scantlebury at NPL in England, Paul Baran
at RAND, and Leonard Kleinrock at MIT. Eventually, the
new design came to be called a packet-switched network
(Figure 1.12b).
F‍igure 1.12


Comparison of circuit-switched networking and packet-switched
networking. (a) In a circuit-switched network, a single physical
connection is established between the two ends. The physical connection
cannot be shared. In this illustration, one circuit links the two computers
labeled A, and another circuit links the two computers labeled B. The
computers labeled C may not communicate at this time, because no circu
can be established. (b) In a packet-switched network, a message is
divided into small bundles of data called packets. Every packet has the
address of the computer where it should be routed. If there is more than
th f
th
t th
d ti ti
diff
t
In 1967 ARPA initiated the design and construction of the
ARPANET. Fear of a nuclear attack led to the crucially
important design decision that the network should be
decentralized. In other words, the loss of any single computer

or communication link would not prevent the rest of the
network from working. Every computer on the network
would have the ability to make decisions about how message
traffic should be routed. Packet-switched networks met this
condition; circuit-switched networks did not.
BBN in Boston was responsible for the Interface Message
Processor (IMP) that connected a computer to the telephone
network. In 1969 BBN delivered its first four IMPs to UCLA,
the Stanford Research Institute, the University of California
at Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah.
1.3.9 Email
During the earliest years of ARPANET, the networked
computers could transfer programs and data only.
ARPANET users still relied upon the telephone for personal
communications. In March 1972, Ray Tomlinson at BBN
wrote the first software enabling email messages to be sent
and received by ARPANET computers. A few months later,
Lawrence Roberts created the first “killer app” for the
network: an email utility that gave individuals the ability to
list their email messages, selectively read them, reply to them,
forward them to others, and save them. Email quickly
became the most popular network application.
Email is now one of the most important communication
technologies on the planet. More than 350 billion email
messages are sent each day.
1.3.10 Internet
ARPA researchers anticipated the need to connect the
ARPANET with other networks based on different designs.
Robert Kahn developed the concept of open architecture
networking, in which individual networks could be quite
different as long as they shared a common “internetworking
architecture.” Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn designed the
TCP/IP protocol that would support open architecture
networking [38]. TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) is
responsible for dividing a message into packets at the sending
computer and reassembling the packets at the receiving
computer. IP (Internet Protocol) is the set of rules used to
route data from computer to computer. The Internet is the
network of networks that communicate using TCP/IP. You
could call January 1, 1983, the birth date of the Internet,
because that was the date on which all ARPANET hosts
converted to TCP/IP.
1.3.11 NSFNET
The National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States
saw the importance of networking to the academic
community. It created a TCP/IP–based network called
NSFNET, and it provided grants to universities to join the
NSFNET. These grants encouraged broad participation by
stipulating that universities would have to make their Internet
connections available to all qualified users. The NSFNET
consisted of regional networks connected by the NSFNET
backbone.
The NSF encouraged the universities participating in regional
networks to reduce their network subscription costs by
finding commercial customers for the networks. At the same
time, the NSF banned commercial traffic on the NSFNET
backbone. These policies stimulated private companies to
create commercial, long-distance Internet connections in the
United States. In April 1995 the NSF ceased funding the
NSFNET backbone. Commercial network providers, well
established by this time, took over the task of supplying longdistance Internet connections in the United States.
1.3.12 Broadband
The term broadband refers to a high-speed Internet
connection. Broadband connections make feasible the
transfer of large files, such as those containing images, music,
and video. The growth of file swapping among Internet users
and music and video streaming has paralleled the growth of
broadband connections.
Typical broadband speeds vary widely among high-income,
industrialized countries. The world broadband leaders are
Chile, with a median download speed of 216 megabits per
second; China, at 215 megabits per second; and Singapore, at
214 megabits per second. The United States ranks sixth in the
world, with an average broadband speed of 189 megabits per
second [39].
1.3.13 Wireless Networks
Cell phones, also known as mobile phones, allow telephone
calls to be made over radio links. The first cell phone,
demonstrated by Motorola in 1973, was quite large and
weighed two and a half pounds. Advances in integrated
circuits and other technologies have allowed companies to
shrink the size and weight of cell phones substantially while
greatly increasing their capabilities. Modern smartphones,
such as the one shown in Figure 1.1, weigh just a few ounces
and support a wide variety of services in addition to voice
communication, including text messaging, email, and Internet
access.
The social impact of cellular networks has been dramatic,
particularly in countries with previously limited
infrastructure. People living in areas never reached by wired
telephone service now have the ability to communicate with
others and access the Internet. Three-quarters of the people in
the world aged 10 and older now own a cell phone [40].
In 1993 Henrik Sjödin proposed the development of publicaccess wireless local area networks. Today wireless Internet
access points, or hotspots, are commonplace at coffee shops,
libraries, airports, university campuses, and other public
places where people gather. Computers and other electronic
devices within range of the hotspot communicate with the
hotspot using radio waves. Most hotspots use a technology
known as Wi-Fi.
1.3.14 Cloud Computing
Cloud computing refers to the utilization of remote
computing resources over the Internet; the term comes from
the tradition of representing networks as clouds in technical
diagrams [41, 42].
Several important technological breakthroughs made cloud
computing possible: high-speed networks; high-performance,
low-cost microprocessors; low cost of storage devices; and
virtualization—software that enables a single physical
computer to emulate many virtual computing devices.
Providers of cloud computing services have assembled
massive data centers that achieve an economy of scale,
allowing the providers to lease computational resources to
customers at an attractive price. Customers have tremendous
flexibility to choose the specifications of the virtual machines
they are leasing as well as the number of these machines they
wish to employ for their computation.
Many kinds of service are available through cloud
computing, including software as a service and infrastructure
as a service. Software as a service means the use of remote
computing resources to deliver applications to the user,
typically through a Web browser. Microsoft’s Office 365 is
an example of software as a service. Infrastructure as a
service allows customers to utilize remote storage and
computational capabilities on a pay-as-you-go basis. The
most popular providers of infrastructure as a service are
Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud
Platform, and IBM Cloud [43].
he primary source document for this description of the evolution of the Intern
A Brief History of the Internet by Barry M. Leiner et al. [37].
1.4 Milestones in
Information Storage
and Retrieval
The previous two sections surveyed technological
developments related to manipulating and transmitting
information, respectively. This section focuses on the
development of technologies to store and retrieve
information.
1.4.1 Greek Alphabet
As civilizations expanded around 6,000 years ago, writing
systems were developed to allow the recording and
communication of various types of information, such as laws
and financial records. There are three general types of writing
systems. In a logography each character represents a word, in
a syllabary each character represents a syllable, and in an
alphabet each character represents a phoneme.
In the eighth century BC, the Greeks developed the first true
alphabet: an alphabet representing vowel sounds as well as
consonant sounds. Compared with earlier writing systems
developed in Mesopotamia and Egypt, the 24-letter Greek
alphabet was a simple, efficient way of transforming the
spoken word into written form, and it marked an important
milestone on the journey from an oral culture to a written
culture. The English alphabet we use today is a direct
descendant of the alphabet used by the ancient Greeks [44].
1.4.2 Codex and Paper
Two thousand years ago, important information was
recorded on papyrus scrolls wrapped around wooden rods.
Papyrus had to be stored this way to keep from breaking
apart. Even so, the ends of papyrus scrolls tended to fall off.
The development of the codex was a significant advance in
information storage and retrieval technology. A codex was
made up of rectangular pages sewn together on one side.
These pages were made out of sheepskin (parchment) or
calfskin (vellum). The codex was superior to papyrus in two
ways. First, the codex was much more durable than a
papyrus roll. Second, since it was divided into pages, the
codex made it much easier for readers to find a particular
passage: they could simply flip to the desired page.
Between the second and fourth centuries, the codex gradually
replaced the scroll as the most popular method of recording
important information. The Church accelerated the transition
by insisting that all sacred texts be recorded in codices, to
distinguish them from Hebrew scriptures kept on scrolls.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Irish monks preserved
Western culture by copying Greco-Roman and JudeoChristian texts into codices [45]. Centuries later, most
codices were produced using a process of wood engraving. A
craftsman would take a block of wood and laboriously chisel
away the background for a portion of a page, leaving the
letters and illustrations raised. When all the wooden blocks
for a page were carved, they would be fastened together.
After the surface was inked, a blank page would be printed
by pressing the blocks down on the inked surface.
The invention of paper is credited to Cai Lun of China in the
early second century. In the late Middle Ages, European
explorers learned and brought back from China the
technology for manufacturing paper in mass quantities. By
the fifteenth century, paper gradually began to replace
parchment in less expensive European codices.
1.4.3 Gutenberg’s Printing
Press
In 1436 Johannes Gutenberg began work on a printing press
that would imprint pages using movable metal type rather
than wood blocks, and in 1455 work was completed on
Gutenberg’s famous “42-Line Bible.” Soon other printers
were using the same technology to produce codices. The
principal customer of these publishers was the Church. Hence
most early publications were religious books and pamphlets.
The number of books in circulation rose as their price
dropped, and the widespread availability of printed material
led to an increase in the literacy rate.
The printing press proved itself to be a powerful tool for
mass communication during the Reformation. Martin Luther
did more than nail his 95 theses to the door of a church—he
published them. Between 1517 and 1520, more than 300,000
copies of Martin Luther’s publications were sold [46]. In the
next 50 years, the number of religious tracts produced by
Protestant reformers would outnumber those of their
Catholic opponents by a factor of 10 to 1.
1.4.4 Newspapers
The printing press made possible the establishment of
newspapers. Newspapers provided an important new way for
private citizens to get their points of view heard. A free press
serves as a powerful counterweight to government and its
desire to manage the flow of information. It is not surprising,
then, that there is a long history of government censorship or
suppression of newspapers.
The first English-language newspaper appeared in Great
Britain in the 1600s. Throughout most of the seventeenth
century the government controlled the press by licensing
approved newspapers and suppressing the rest. However, in
1695 Parliament declined to renew the Licensing Act, paving
the way for a free press in England.
In North America, newspapers helped to unify the colonies.
As colonists read newspapers published in other colonies,
they came to realize what values and concerns they shared
with other colonists up and down the Atlantic seaboard. In
this way newspapers played an important role in swaying
public opinion toward favoring independence from Great
Britain.
1.4.5 Hypertext
The July 1945 issue of the Atlantic Monthly contained a
visionary paper, “As We May Think,” written by Vannevar
Bush, who had served as director of the Office of Scientific
Research and Development in World War II. In the paper
Bush noted, “The world has arrived at an age of cheap
complex devices of great reliability; and something is bound
to come of it” [47, p. 102]. He described many ways in
which technology can solve important problems. One of the
problems he focused on was that of information retrieval. He
pointed out how difficult it is for scientists to keep up with
all the research results that are being published, especially
when indexing systems do not lend themselves to exposing
the relationships among documents. Bush noted that the
human mind doesn’t work by indexing. Instead, our
memories are associative. When we think of one thing, other
related memories awaken in our minds. He suggested that a
machine could simulate, to some degree, the mind’s ability to
make associations between pieces of information. He gave a
description for the Memex, an information retrieval system
equipped with “a provision whereby any item may be caused
at will to select immediately and automatically another” [47,
p. 107].
Ted Nelson was raised by his grandparents in Greenwich
Village, New York. He was a graduate student studying
sociology at Harvard when he took his first computer class.
There he discovered that “everything everyone was saying
about computers was a lie. It was up to me to design the
literature of the future” [48, p. 134]. In 1965 Nelson coined
the word hypertext, which refers to a linked network of
nodes containing information. The links allow readers to visit
the nodes in a nonlinear fashion [49]. The proposed system
had much in common with Bush’s proposal for Memex. In
1967 Nelson proposed the creation of a system called
Xanadu, a worldwide network of connected literature.
Despite decades of work and a $5 million investment from
Autodesk, the system was never completed [48].
1.4.6 Graphical User
Interface
Douglas Engelbart grew up on a dairy farm in Oregon. After
graduating from high school, he attended Oregon State
College, but his electrical engineering studies were
interrupted by World War II. While he was stationed in the
Philippines, he worked with radar and read “As We May
Think” by Vannevar Bush. These two experiences shaped his
views about the potential of computing. When his military
service ended, he completed his degree at OSC and took a job
at Ames Laboratory, but soon began wondering, “How can
my career maximize my contribution to mankind?” [50].
Engelbart decided to return to school and completed a PhD
in electrical engineering from the University of California,
Berkeley, in 1955. He joined the Stanford Research Institute,
where he set out to use the power of the computer to
augment human intellect.
In the 1950s and 1960s, people submitted computer jobs in
the form of decks of punch cards and often waited hours for
them to run. Computer output was typically pages full of
numbers that programmers would laboriously examine.
Engelbart wondered why people couldn’t interact directly
with computers and view the output on a CRT, like radar
images. He created a research lab called the Augmentation
Research Center. This lab developed a hypermedia and
groupware system called NLS (oNLine System). Engelbart
invented several new input devices, including the computer
mouse. In 1968 at the Fall Joint Computer Conference in San
Francisco, he gave a 90-minute demonstration of NLS that
included a video display divided into windows, email, use of
a mouse to direct a cursor, and live videoconferencing with
staff members 30 miles away (Figure 1.13). Engelbart’s
presentation is still called “the mother of all demos.” Paul
Saffo said, “It was like a UFO landing on the White House
lawn.” The presentation was so far ahead of its time that
some audience members thought it was a hoax [51]. Others
thought Engelbart’s ideas were completely impractical, noting
that he was treating a computer as if it were for his personal
use.
F‍igure 1.13
Douglas Engelbart rehearses for his presentation at the 1968 Fall Joint
Computer Conference. It is still called “the mother of all demos.”
(PVDE/Bridgeman Images)
Alan Kay saw Engelbart’s demo, understood the
ramifications of NLS, and was eager to take the next step. In
1970 he became one of the founding members of Xerox Palo
Alto Research Center (PARC), a new facility dedicated to
performing research into digital technology. The research
team created the Alto, a small minicomputer designed to be
used by a single person. The Alto incorporated a bitmapped
display, a keyboard, and a mouse. Kay played a leading role
in developing the Alto’s graphical user interface that
responded to the point, click, and drag operations of a
mouse. In order to link together the Altos, the Xerox PARC
team also created Ethernet, which became a networking
standard throughout the computer industry. Ultimately,
however, Xerox failed in its attempt to market a commercial
personal computer.
In 1979 Apple Computer sold 10 percent of its stock to
Xerox. In return, Xerox let Steve Jobs and some Apple
engineers visit Xerox PARC to learn more about its research.
Jobs returned from the visit committed to building a
computer with a graphical user interface. A few years later
Apple released the Lisa, a $10,000 personal computer with a
graphical user interface. The price tag was too high, the
processor was too slow, and the Lisa was not commercially
successful. However, in January 1984 Apple released the
Macintosh, a faster $2,495 computer with a graphical user
interface. The Macintosh was an instant hit: Apple sold
300,000 in the first year.
During the 1980s IBM, VisiCorp, and Microsoft all offered
graphical user interfaces for IBM PC-compatible computers,
but they could not compare in sophistication to the interface
of the Apple Macintosh. Finally, in May 1990 Microsoft
released Windows 3.0 for IBM PCs. Consumers eagerly
bought 10 million copies of Windows, giving Microsoft a
near monopoly in the graphical user interface market that it
has maintained ever since.
1.4.7 Single-Computer
Hypertext Systems
In 1982 Peter Brown at the University of Kent at Canterbury
started a hypertext research project. He named the software
Guide. Later, Office Workstations Ltd. commercialized
Guide, releasing versions for both the Apple Macintosh and
the IBM PC.
In 1987 Apple Computer released HyperCard, a hypertext
system that enabled programmers to create “stacks” of
“cards.” A card could contain text and images. The
HyperCard programmer created links from one card to
another with “buttons.” Buttons could be visible to the user
and labeled, or they could be transparent and associated with
an image or an area of the card.
Users typically viewed one card at a time. They jumped from
one card to another by using the computer’s mouse to move a
cursor over a button and then clicking the mouse. The bestselling computer games Myst and Riven were actually
HyperCard stacks.
1.4.8 Networked Hypertext:
World Wide Web
Tim Berners-Lee is the son of two mathematicians, both of
whom were programmers for the Ferranti Mark 1 computer
in the 1950s. From them, Berners-Lee learned that, “in
principle, a person could program a computer to do most
anything” [52, p. 3]. He also learned that it is easy to get a
computer to keep information in lists or tables, but much
more difficult to get it to remember arbitrary relationships.
When Berners-Lee was in high school, his father read some
books about the brain; the two of them talked about how a
computer might be able to make neural-like connections the
way a brain does. This idea stuck with Berners-Lee, and in
1980, while working for CERN in Switzerland, he wrote a
program called Enquire that incorporated links between
information. Berners-Lee was not familiar with the work of
Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, or Doug Engelbart, but he was
heading in the same direction.
In late 1989 Berners-Lee wrote a memo to a management
team at CERN, proposing the development of a networked
hypertext system that could be used for documentation
purposes. When they didn’t respond, he tried again in the
spring of 1990. Again, no response. However, an intriguing
new personal computer called the NeXT had just been
released. Berners-Lee asked his boss if he could purchase a
NeXT to check out its operating system and programming
environment. His boss okayed the purchase, then puckishly
suggested that maybe Berners-Lee ought to test the system’s
capabilities by implementing his proposed hypertext system
on it [52].
Unlike earlier commercial hypertext systems, Berners-Lee’s
system allowed links between information stored on different
computers connected by a network. Because it is built on top
of the TCP/IP protocol, links can connect any two computers
on the Internet, even if they have different hardware or are
running different operating systems.
A Web browser is a program that allows a user to view Web
pages and traverse hyperlinks between pages. Berners-Lee
completed the first Web browser on the NeXT computer on
Christmas Day 1990. He called his browser WorldWideWeb.
In March 1991 he released the browser to some computer
users at CERN.
In 1995 Netscape Navigator was by far the most popular
Web browser. Late in that year, Microsoft made available for
free to Windows users its own new Web browser, called
Internet Explorer. Beginning in 1997, Microsoft integrated
Internet Explorer into Windows. Everyone purchasing a
Windows PC had Internet Explorer preinstalled, with its icon
on their desktop. Unsurprisingly, Internet Explorer quickly
began gaining market share. In 1998 the US Department of
Justice sued Microsoft for abusing its dominant position in
the PC market and restricting the market for competing Web
browsers. In 2000 the court ruled that Microsoft’s
dominance of PC-based operating systems was a monopoly,
and the judge ordered Microsoft to be broken up. However,
the ruling was overturned on appeal in 2002. By 2003
Internet Explorer had a market share of 95% [53, 54].
Today, the most popular Web browsers are Chrome, Edge,
Safari, and Firefox. These browsers enable Web surfers to
retrieve text, still images, videos, songs, computer programs
—in theory, anything that can be digitized. The Web has also
become a convenient way for organizations to provide access
to news updates and dynamically changing information.
1.4.9 Search Engines
A search engine is a program that accepts a list of keywords
from a user, searches a database of documents, and returns
those documents most closely matching the specified
keywords. Today the term is most frequently used to describe
programs that search databases of Web pages. Web search
engines are the most powerful information retrieval devices
ever invented. The precision of a search engine refers to its
ability to return links to relevant documents close to the top
of the list of search results. High precision is important
because most users don’t want to look beyond the first
several results to find the Web page they want. The most
popular Web search engine, Google, indexes hundreds of
billions of Web pages with high precision. Google’s Book
Search allows users to search the full text of millions of
books [55].
One of the keys to the high precision of the Google search
engine is an algorithm called PageRank that helps order the
pages it returns in response to a user query. Page-Rank is
based on the assumption that a good measure of the
importance and quality of a Web page is how often it is
referenced by other Web sites. Rather than relying solely on
the presence of the search terms in a Web page to determine
its relevance, PageRank counts the number and quality of
links to a page from other Web sites [56].
1.4.10 Cloud Storage
The term cloud storage refers to a model of storing data
remotely on servers accessed through the Internet, in contrast
to storing data locally on a computer’s own hard drive or
other mass storage device. The cloud as a metaphor for the
Internet goes back to the 1990s, if not earlier [57], but the
word entered the popular lexicon with the introduction of
easy-to-use cloud storage services, including Dropbox, Box,
Google Drive, iCloud from Apple, Amazon Drive, Mega, and
pCloud.
Cloud storage services allow customers to use their mobile
devices, such as smart phones and laptops, to access their
data from any location with an Internet connection. Cloud
storage also simplifies the sharing of data files among
multiple users. The availability of huge amounts of data
storage at a relatively low cost and automatic backups of
data are two other important benefits of cloud storage.
1.5 Contemporary
Information
Technology Issues
Information technology (IT) refers to devices used in the
creation, storage, manipulation, exchange, and dissemination
of data, including text, sound, and images. Computers,
networks, smartphones, and USB flash drives are examples of
IT. The cost of IT devices continues to fall while their
capabilities continue to increase. As a result, people are
making greater use of IT in their everyday lives. Some of
these uses create new issues that need to be resolved. Let’s
look at a few of the questions raised by the growth of IT.
For modern digital media, making the original copy is
expensive, but making copies of the original is inexpensive.
For example, entertainment companies spend vast sums
producing songs, movies, and television shows, but once they
have been digitized, the Internet provides a fast and free way
to distribute them. In April 2015 more than a million people
in the United States alone illegally downloaded the first
episode of the fifth season of Game of Thrones, which was
leaked online a day before appearing on HBO [58]. Creators
of computer software are also affected. About three-quarters
of the users of Microsoft products in China do not have
properly licensed software. In March 2015 Microsoft
announced it would be offering free upgrades to the
Windows 10 operating system to all Windows users,
regardless of whether they were running genuine or illegally
obtained copies of Windows [59]. What are reasonable
intellectual property rights in the Information Age? Do the
laws need to change? How must businesses adapt?
Cloud storage services make it convenient for a user to save
photos, videos, music, and important documents, access them
from multiple devices, and share them with others. However,
storing data in the cloud raises reliability and security
concerns. Will remotely stored data always be accessible
when needed, yet remain safe from hackers?
The convenience of credit cards is undeniable, but when
credit card information is stolen, it can be decidedly
inconvenient for customers to determine the fraudulent
charges, report them to the issuer, fill out the paperwork, and
wait for the replacement card to arrive. Sometimes card
information is stolen on a massive scale, affecting millions of
consumers. In November and December of 2013, hackers
broke into computers at Target and stole credit card data,
phone numbers, and email addresses of at least 12 million
Target customers [60]. Credit card companies credit the
accounts of consumers who have fraudulent charges and
debit the accounts of merchants who sell goods to thieves
using stolen card information. That’s good for credit card
holders but bad for small businesses who have no idea the
cards are stolen.
The use of credit cards raises privacy concerns, too. When I
use a credit card to purchase an item, the credit card
company now has information about my spending habits.
Who has a right to that information? If I buy a set of golf
clubs with my credit card, does the credit card company have
a right to sell my name, address, and phone number to other
companies that may want to sell me related products?
The use of IT has changed the way that banks process loan
applications. Rather than using a personal interview to decide
my creditworthiness, the bank consults a national credit
bureau. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this
alternative approach to lending money?
Computers are now embedded in many devices on which we
depend, from traffic signals to pacemakers. Software errors
have resulted in injury and even death. When bugs result in
harm to humans, what should the liability be for the people
or corporations that produced the software?
When employees use IT devices in their work, companies can
monitor their actions closely. For example, a company can
track the number of calls per minute each of its telephone
operators is handling. It can document the number of
keystrokes per minute of its data-entry operators. It can log
all the Web sites its employees visit, and it can read the email
they send and receive at work. How does such monitoring
affect the workplace? Does it create an unacceptable level of
stress among employees?
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people in developed
nations worked from home, thanks to IT. After the
pandemic, a significant number of them did not want to
return to “business as usual.” What are the the advantages
and disadvantages of remote work?
IT capabilities are leading to changes in the IT industry itself.
Silicon Valley used to be the epicenter of the IT industry, but
improvements in the speed and reliability of communication
networks have led to a more decentralized landscape.
Hotspots of innovation now include Seattle, Washington
(Amazon, Expedia, and Microsoft); Austin, Texas (Advanced
Micro Devices, Cisco Systems, and Dell); Beijing, China
(Baidu, Bytedance, Lenovo, and Xiaomi); Walldorf, Germany
(SAP); and Bangalore, India (Infosys and Wipro). US-based
software companies are doing more development in countries
where salaries are much lower, such as India, China, and
Vietnam [9]. Will this trend continue? How many software
jobs in the United States will be lost to countries where labor
is paid significantly less?
Human rights organizations have criticized Foxconn, the
contract manufacturer that makes electronic devices for
Apple, Amazon, Dell, and HP, for placing its Chinese
employees in unsafe working conditions and forcing them to
work longer than the Chinese legal maximum of 49 hours per
week [61]. Should consumers of electronic devices boycott
products that are made under unsafe or illegal conditions, or
would such boycotts actually make conditions worse for
workers in developing nations by depriving them of an
income?
Developments in information technology have opened up
unprecedented opportunities for people to share information
outside the mainstream news media. Empowered individuals
can lead grassroots reform movements. They can also
generate and spread “fake news.” Will the freewheeling
exchange of information made possible by new technologies
strengthen western democracies or undermine them?
1.6 Views of
Technology
In the previous section, we considered some contemporary
issues that have arisen due to the adoption of information
technology. How we approach these issues and others that
arise is influenced by how we view the relationship between
technology and society. In this section, we introduce five
philosophical views of technology: instrumentalism,
pragmatism, technological determinism, the cultural
approach to technology, and decolonial technical design.
These views apply to all technologies, not just information
technologies, so let’s begin by defining technology.
Technology is the application of engineering knowledge to
solve practical problems. The products of technology may be
tangible, such as tools and machines, or intangible, such as
software.
The traditional view of technology, called instrumentalism,
sees technological devices as instruments created by engineers
to achieve ends dictated by society. Instrumentalists focus on
the benefits of technology. They see technology as expanding
human capabilities, which is desirable. While it is true that a
technology may be put to a bad use, that is the fault of the
human users of the technology, not the creators of the
technology or the technology itself, according to this view.
The neutrality thesis holds that technology is neither good
nor bad; it is the users of that technology who determine
whether it will be put to good or bad use. A well-known
example of this perspective is the statement, “Guns don’t kill
people. People kill people.”
Most modern philosophers of technology do not subscribe to
the view that technology is value neutral. They point out that
technology is created with a goal in mind. High-quality
technological creations are efficient at achieving the goals for
which they were designed, and they are much less efficient at
accomplishing other goals. Hence there is a connection
between technologies and goals, and the moral value of the
goals “rubs off” on the technologies employed to achieve
them [62].
Like instrumentalism, pragmatism is another view of
technology that focuses on the role of technological devices in
solving practical problems. Unlike instrumentalists, however,
pragmatists do not think technology is value neutral. Rather,
in their view, the value of a technology is dependent on the
social context in which it is deployed. For example, urban
coal-fired steam-heating plants would have been viewed
favorably in the 1880s because they were a cleaner and more
efficient source of heat than the alternatives available at that
time. Today, the same technology would be seen as harmful
because climate change is an important social concern, and
coal-fired plants emit more carbon dioxide than alternative
heat sources.
Technological determinism is the view that technological
advancements are the most important driver of social,
economic, and cultural change. According to this view,
technological change is autonomous and inevitable, as
expressed in the familiar saying, “You can’t stop progress.”
Technological determinists can point to historical events
supporting their view. For example, the early adoption of
gunpowder in Turkey enabled the creation the Ottoman
Empire, and the invention of the printing press was a catalyst
for the creation of nation-states in Western Europe. Modern
commentators who see the rise of AI as unstoppable are
reflecting a deterministic view of technology.
Critics of technological determinism argue that the theory is
too simplistic and ignores the fact that societies do have some
choice regarding whether to adopt new technologies. The
cultural approach to technology holds that technology is an
expression of human culture. Technology is value-laden
because once adopted, it can impact society by making it
easier for people to achieve some goals and more difficult for
them to achieve others [62]. For example, as described earlier
in this chapter, the adoption of the telephone facilitated longdistance communication, and the telephone also eroded
traditional social hierarchies and generated new concerns
about privacy.
Underlying the European colonization of the lands and
people of America, Asia, and Africa was a belief system that
presumed the racial inferiority of the colonized people and
the inferiority of their knowledge and values. Coloniality
refers to the situation in which these beliefs have been
internalized and have persisted, even though colonialism is
largely relegated to the past. Ex-colonized people believing
that they are incapable of developing high quality
technologies is a symptom of coloniality. Another symptom
of coloniality is the view of some North Americans or
Europeans that they can solve technical problems in
developing nations without any help from the people who
live there. Decolonial technical design is the view that a
pluralistic technical design process can overcome coloniality
by including the knowledge, values, and world views of
formerly colonized people [63].
Summary
We are living in the Information Age, an era characterized by
ubiquitous computing and communication devices that have
made information much easier to collect, store, retrieve,
manipulate, and transmit. These devices are the culmination
of centuries of technological progress.
What conclusions can we draw from our study of the
development of computers, communication networks, and
information storage and retrieval devices? First, revolutionary
discoveries are rare. Most innovations represent simply the
next step in a long staircase of evolutionary changes. Each
inventor, or team of inventors, relies upon prior work. In
many cases different inventors come up with the same
“original” idea at the same time.
A second conclusion we can draw from these stories is that
the impact of information technology on society did not
begin with the personal computer and the World Wide Web.
Many other inventions, including the telegraph, the
telephone, the mechanical calculator, the radio, and the
television, led to significant social changes when they were
adopted.
Finally, the rapid rate of technological change is causing a
number of important new questions to emerge that test our
values. Is it right for an AI program to produce a work of art
without any compensation to the artists whose works were
used to train the AI? Is it wrong for a government to keep
track of every telephone call made by its citizens? Is it wrong
to contribute to the development of autonomous automobiles
that could put hundreds of thousands of taxicab drivers out
of work?
The use of a new technology can have a significant impact on
a society, but we need to remember that, as societies and as
individuals, we have a great deal of control over how we
choose to use a technology in order to maintain the values we
hold to be fundamentally important. As Seymour Papert
observed:
So we are entering this computer future; but what will it be like?
What sort of a world will it be? There is no shortage of experts,
futurists, and prophets who are ready to tell us, but they don’t
agree. The Utopians promise us a new millennium, a wonderful
world in which the computer will solve all our problems. The
computer critics warn us of the dehumanizing effect of too much
exposure to machinery, and of disruption of employment in the
workplace and the economy.
Who is right? Well, both are wrong—because they are asking the
wrong question. The question is not “What will the computer do
to us?” The question is “What will we make of the computer?”
The point is not to predict the computer future. The point is to
make it. [64]
Zits © 2005 Zits Partnership, Distributed by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Further Reading, Listening,
and Viewing
Adam Alter. “Why Our Screens Make Us Less Happy.”
TED2017, April 2017. 9:29.
www.ted.com/talks/adam_alter_why_our_screens_make_us_les
Jim Axelrod. “Communities Fight Back Against
Congestion-Causing Traffic Apps.” CBS News, January
10, 2018. 2:09. www.cbsnews.com/news/traffic-appswaze-traffic-nightmare-leonia-nj/.
Nicholar Carr. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”
Atlantic, July/August 2008.
Maciej Cegłowski. “I’m Going to Antarctica for the
Penguins and to Hide from the Internet.” Wired, March
23, 2016. www.wired.com.
Charles Duhigg and David Barboza. “In China, the
Human Costs That Are Built into an iPad.” New York
Times, January 26, 2012.
“The Teenager Leading the Smartphone Liberation
Movement.” Interview of Logan Lane. First Person
(podcast). Hosted by Lulu Garcia-Navarro. 39:41.
February 2, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/02/opinion/teenluddite- smartphones.html.
Michelle Goldberg. “Don’t Let Politics Cloud Your
View of What’s Going On with Teens and Depression.”
New York Times, February 24, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/24/opinion/socialmedia-and-teen-depression.html.
Andrew Keen. “Opinion: Facebook Threatens to ‘Zuck
Up’ the Human Race.” CNN.com, May 30, 2012.
www.cnn.com.
Erik Kruse. “On the Brink of a Networked Society.”
BOLDtalks, April 1, 2013. 18:36.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iazoyHS5tZ4.
Alexis C. Madigral. “The Perfect Selfishness of
Mapping Apps.” CityLab (Web site), March 15, 2018.
www.citylab.com.
Robert Rosenberger. “Viewpoint: The Problem with
Hands-Free Dashboard Cellphones.” Communications
of the ACM, April 2013.
Paul Solman. “How Virtual Reality Games Can
Transform Society, Prosperity.” PBS News-Hour, July
11, 2013. 10:27. video.pbs.org.
John D. Sutter. “Despite Horses and Buggies, Amish
Aren’t Necessarily ‘Low-Tech.’” CNN.com, June 22,
2011. www.cnn.com.
Tish Harrison Warren. “We Should Be More ‘Amish’
About Technology.” New York Times, May 21, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/21/opinion/technologyteenagers-religion.html.
Carlos Watson. “Is Technology Making Us Smarter or
Dumber?” Point Taken, June 21, 2016. 26:47.
www.pbs.org/video/point-taken-technology-making-ussmarter-or-dumber-2.
Tea Uglow. “An Internet Without Screens Might Look
Like This.” TEDxSydney, May 2015. 8:24.
https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_uglow_an_internet_without_sc
Review Questions
1. Some examples of information technology, such as the
alphabet and the abacus, are more than 2,000 years
old. What about the present era distinguishes it as the
Information Age?
2. How did the popularity of mathematical tables
stimulate the development of autonomous calculating
machines?
3. Compare and contrast the social conditions in the
United States that stimulated the growth of the
mechanical calculator market in the latter half of the
nineteenth century with the social conditions that
stimulated the growth of the personal computer market
in the latter half of the twentieth century.
4. The Burroughs Adding Machine Company dominated
the mechanical calculator market in the 1890s, and
IBM dominated the electronic computer industry in the
1960s. What did these companies have in common that
led them to the number-one position in their respective
markets?
5. Name three ways the development of radar in World
War II stimulated advances in computing.
6. In what way did the Cold War help bring about the
personal computer?
7. Can you think of a practical reason why the semaphore
telegraph was adopted more rapidly on the continent of
Europe than in the British Isles?
8. Compare and contrast the social impact of these three
information technologies: the telegraph, the telephone,
and wireless networks.
9. In what important ways did the hypertext system of
Berners-Lee differ from earlier hypertext systems?
10. Give four examples from this chapter of how a social
condition influenced the development of a new
information technology.
11. Give four examples from this chapter of a social change
caused or accelerated by the adoption of a new
information technology.
12. Compare and contrast the four views of technology
presented in the chapter. Which of these views most
closely fits the authorʼs presentation of the history of
computing, networking, and information storage and
retrieval?
Discussion
Questions
13. Think about the last piece of consumer electronics you
purchased. How did you first learn about it? What
factors (features, price, ease of use, etc.) did you weigh
before you purchased it? Which of these factors were
most influential in your purchase decision? Are you still
happy with your purchase?
14. Do you tend to acquire new technological devices
before or after the majority of your friends? What are
the advantages of being an early adopter of a new
technology? What are the advantages of being a late
adopter of a new technology?
15. Have you ever gone camping or had another experience
where you went for at least a few days without access
to a phone, radio, television, or computer? (In other
words, there was no communication between you and
the outside world.) What did you learn from your
experience?
16. Are there any information technologies that you wish
had never been adopted? If so, which ones?
17. The telephone eroded traditional social hierarchies. Has
email had the same effect within colleges and
universities? Do students send emails to people they
would be uncomfortable talking with personally? Are
these emails effective?
18. Is the cell phone changing our views about polite and
impolite behavior? For example, is it polite for
someone to be talking on their cell phone while
ordering a drink at Starbucks?
19. Would you rather text someone than call them? Why
or why not?
20. Martin Carnoy writes, “Thanks to a communications
and software revolution, we are more ‘connected’ than
ever before—by cell phone, email, and video
conferencing—yet more disconnected than in the past
from social interaction” [65]. Do you agree?
21. Was it wrong for Altair 8800 owners to use Altair
BASIC on their computers without paying Micro-Soft?
22. The story of Altair BASIC highlights a clash between
those who see software as something to be developed
and freely shared among computer enthusiasts and
those who see software development as an
entrepreneurial activity. Give some contemporary
examples that illustrate these contrasting views of
software.
23. More than 90 percent of personal computers run a
version of the Microsoft Windows operating system. In
what ways is this situation beneficial to computer
users? In what ways does this situation harm computer
users?
24. Angelo says, “When I’m trying to have a face-to-face
conversation with someone, and that person repeatedly
interrupts the conversation to answer their cell phone
or exchange text messages, they are basically telling me
that I’m not worth all of their attention.” Do you agree
with Angelo?
25. Does the widespread use of cloud computing and cloud
storage by consumers represent an abandonment of the
antiestablishment, “power-to-the-people” vision that
fueled the growth of the personal computer industry?
26. Do you agree or disagree with the neutrality thesis?
27. Do you believe that technological progress is
unstoppable?
28. How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the
development and adoption of new information
technologies?
29. Predict the social changes that will take place if
autonomous cars and trucks (vehicles capable of
driving themselves with no human intervention)
become the norm.
30. How would the widespread use of generative AI
technologies such as ChatGPT and Dall-E change
society?
In-Class Exercises
31. Managers of health clubs are concerned that people in
locker rooms may be secretly photographed by other
members carrying smartphones.
Divide the class into groups of about four students.
Each group should discuss the following proposition:
“Health clubs should ban all smartphone use within
their premises.” After a reasonable length of time,
groups should take turns sharing their conclusions with
the rest of the class.
32. In the 1984 presidential election, all the major
television networks used computers to predict that
Republican Ronald Reagan would defeat Democrat
Walter Mondale, even before the polls closed on the
West Coast. When they heard this news, some Mondale
supporters who had been waiting in line to vote simply
went home without voting. Although the national
election was already settled, the TV networks may have
influenced the results of some statewide and local
elections.
Divide the class into groups of about four students.
Each group should discuss the pros and cons of the
following proposition: “In presidential elections, the
polls should close at the same time everywhere in the
United States.” After a reasonable length of time, the
groups should take turns sharing their conclusions with
the rest of the class.
33. Read about “Star Wars Kid” and “The Bus Uncle” on
Wikipedia, then have small groups discuss the
following proposition: “It is wrong to post a photo or
video of someone else on the Internet without their
permission.”
References
[1] Linda Lacina. “Nearly 3 Billion People Around the
Globe Under COVID-19 Lockdowns—Today’s
Coronavirus Updates.” World Economic Forum,
March 26, 2020.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/todayscoronavirus-updates/.
[2] Erin Richards, Elinor Aspegren, and Erin Mansfield. “A
Year into the Pandemic, Thousands of Students Still
Can’t Get Reliable WiFi for School. The Digital Divide
Remains Worse than Ever.” USA Today, February 4,
2021.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2021/02/04/covidonline-school-broadband-internet-laptops/3930744001/
[3] “Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S.
Surgeon General’s Advisory.”
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mentalhealth-social- media-advisory.pdf. Accessed June 20,
2023.
[4] Ethan S. Bromberg-Martin and Okihide Hikosaka.
“Midbrain Dopamine Neurons Signal Preference for
Advance Information about Upcoming Rewards.”
Neuron, 26: 119–126, July 16, 2009.
[5] Susan Weinschenk. “100 Things You Should Know
About People: #8—Dopamine Makes You Addicted to
Seeking Information.” What Makes Them Click:
Applying Psychology to Understand How People
Think, Work, and Relate (blog), November 7, 2009.
www.whatmakesthemclick.net.
[6] Christine Rosen. “Our Cell Phones, Ourselves.” New
Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, Summer
6: 26–45, 2004.
[7] Howard Rheingold. “Look Who’s Talking.” Wired
(7.01), 7(1): 128–131, January 1999.
[8] Alexis C. Madigral. “The Perfect Selfishness of
Mapping Apps.” CityLab (Web site), March 15, 2018.
www.citylab.com.
[9] “The New Geography of the IT Industry.” The
Economist, 368(8333): 53–55 , July 19, 2003.
[10] “Most Nuclear Power Plants Were Built Between 1970
and 1990.” Web page, U.S. Energy Information
Administration, April 27, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?
id=30972.
[11] Peggy A. Kidwell and Paul E. Ceruzzi. Landmarks in
Digital Computing: A Smithsonian Pictorial History.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1994.
[12] James Cortada. Before the Computer: IBM, NCR,
Burroughs, and Remington Rand and the Industry
They Created, 1865–1956. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, 2000.
[13] “A Better Day’s Work at Less Cost of Time, Work, and
Worry to the Man at the Desk: In Three Parts
Illustrated,” 3d ed. Burroughs Adding Machine
Company, Detroit, MI, 1909.
[14] Sharon H. Strom. “‘Machines Instead of Clerks’:
Technology and the Feminization of Bookkeeping,
1910–1950.” In Computer Chips and Paper Clips:
Technology and Women’s Employment, Volume II:
Case Studies and Policy Perspectives, edited by Heidi I.
Hartmann, Robert E. Kraut, and Louise A. Tilly.
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp. 63–97,
1987.
[15] Edwin Black. IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic
Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most
Powerful Corporation. Dialog Press, Washington, DC,
2011.
[16] Joel Shurkin. Engines of the Mind: The Evolution of the
Computer from Mainframes to Microprocessors. W.W.
Norton & Company, New York, NY, 1996.
[17] Grace Murray Hopper. “Keynote Address.” In History
of Programming Languages, edited by Richard L.
Wexelblat. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 7–20,
1981.
[18] John Backus. “The History of FORTRAN I, II, and
III.” In History of Programming Languages, edited by
Richard L. Wexelblat. Academic Press, New York, NY,
pp. 25–45, 1981.
[19] Jean E. Sammet. “The Early History of COBOL.” In
History of Programming Languages, edited by Richard
L. Wexelblat. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp.
199–243, 1981.
[20] Thomas E. Kurtz. “Basic.” In History of Programming
Languages, edited by Richard L. Wexelblat. Academic
Press, New York, NY, pp. 515–537, 1981.
[21] Robert Buderi. The Invention That Changed the World:
How a Small Group of Radar Pioneers Won the Second
World War and Launched a Technological Revolution.
Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1996.
[22] Michael Riordan and Lillian Hoddeson. Crystal Fire:
The Birth of the Information Age. W. W. Norton &
Company, New York, NY, 1997.
[23] Frederick Seitz and Norman G. Einspruch. Electronic
Genie: The Tangled History of Silicon. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1998.
[24] John Markoff. What the Dormouse Said: How the
Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer
Industry. Penguin Books, New York, NY, 2005.
[25] Steve Jobs. “You’ve Got to Find What You Love.”
Commencement speech, Stanford University, June 12,
2005.
[26] Fred Turner. From Counterculture to Cyberculture:
Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise
of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL, 2006.
[27] The People’s Computer Company, Issue 1, cover,
October 1972.
[28] Paul Carroll. Big Blues: The Unmaking of IBM. Crown
Publishers, New York, NY, 1993.
[29] Sidney H. Aronson. “Bell’s Electrical Toy.” In The
Social Impact of the Telephone, edited by Ithiel de Sola
Pool. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 27–31, 1977.
[30] Carolyn Marvin. When Old Technologies Were New:
Thinking About Electric Communications in the Late
Nineteenth Century. Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, 1988.
[31] “Telephone Cranks.” Western Electrician (Chicago), p.
37, July 17, 1897.
[32] Ithiel de Sola Pool. “Introduction.” In The Social
Impact of the Telephone, edited by Ithiel de Sola Pool.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 1, 1977.
[33] Asa Briggs. “The Pleasure Telephone.” In The Social
Impact of the Telephone, edited by Ithiel de Sola Pool.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 41, 1977.
[34] Martin Campbell-Kelly and William Aspray. Computer:
A History of the Information Machine. BasicBooks,
New York, NY, 1996.
[35] James Wood. History of International Broadcasting.
Peter Peregrinus, London, United Kingdom, p. 12,
1992.
[36] “War of the Worlds, Orson Welles, and the Invasion
from Mars.” Transparency (Web site).
www.transparencynow.com.
[37] Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark,
Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch,
Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, and Stephen Wolff. A
Brief History of the Internet, Version 3.32, December
10, 2003. www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml.
[38] Vinton G. Cerf and Robert E. Kahn. “A Protocol for
Packet Network Intercommunication.” IEEE
Transactions on Communications, COM-22(5), pp.
637–648, May 1974.
[39] Josh Fomon. “The Speedtest Global Index Shows These
Countries Sped Forward for Internet Experience in
2022.” Ookla, January 4, 2023.
https://www.ookla.com/articles/global-index-internetspeed-growth-2022.
[40] “Mobile Phone Ownership.” International
Telecommunication Union. https://www.itu.int/itu-
d/reports/statistics/2022/11/24/ff22-mobile-phoneownership/. Accessed June 29, 2023.
[41] Laurent Gloaguen. “Understanding Cloud Computing.”
Spiria (blog), October 14, 2016. www.spiria.com.
Accessed February 11, 2018.
[42] Martin Dodge. “An Atlas of Cyberspaces: Historical
Maps of Computer Networks.”
http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/m.dodge/cybergeog
atlas/historical.html. Accessed February 11, 2018.
[43] Eric Knorr. “What Is Cloud Computing? Everything
You Need to Know Now.” InfoWorld, July 10, 2017.
www.infoworld.com.
[44] David Diringer and David R. Olson. “Greek Alphabet.”
Brittanica. www.brittanica.com.
[45] Thomas Cahill. How the Irish Saved Civilization: The
Untold Story of Ireland’s Role from the Fall of Rome to
the Rise of Medieval Europe. Anchor Books, New
York, NY, 1995.
[46] Elizabeth L. Eisenstein. The Printing Press as an Agent
of Change. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England, 1979.
[47] Vannevar Bush. “As We May Think.” Atlantic
Monthly, 176(1):101–108, August 1945.
[48] Owen Edwards. “Ted Nelson.” Forbes ASAP, August
25, 1997.
[49] Lauren Wedeles. “Prof. Nelson Talk Analyzes
P.R.I.D.E.” Vassar Miscellany News, February 3, 1965.
[50] Tia O’Brien. “From the Archives: Douglas Engelbart’s
Lasting Legacy, 1999.” San Jose Mercury News, July 3,
2013.
[51] “Internet Pioneers: Doug Engelbart.” ibiblio (Web site),
www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/engelbart.html. Accessed
September 23, 2013.
[52] Tim Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. HarperCollins
Publishers, New York, NY, 1999.
[53] “Browser Wars.” Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Browser_wars#First_browser_war_(1995%E2%80%932001).
Accessed July 25, 2023.
[54] “United States v. Microsoft Corp.” Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp
Accessed July 25, 2023.
[55] “How Search Organizes Information.” Google (Web
site).
www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/crawlingindexing/. Accessed March 19, 2018.
[56] Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page. “The Anatomy of a
Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine.”
WWW7: Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on World Wide Web, 107–117, April 1998.
[57] Daniela Hernandez. “Tech Time Warp of the Week:
Watch AT&T Invent Cloud Computing in 1994.”
Wired, May 23, 2014. www.wired.com.
[58] Game of Thrones Season 5 Infographic. Tru Optik,
April 2015. www.truoptik.com.
[59] Bill Rigby and Paul Carsten. “Microsoft Tackles China
Piracy with Free Upgrade to Windows 10.” Reuters,
March 18, 2015. www.reuters.com.
[60] Ben Elgin. “Three New Details from Target’s Credit
Card Breach.” Bloomberg, March 26, 2014.
www.bloomberg.com.
[61] Vindu Goel. “Foxconn Audit Finds a Workweek Still
Too Long.” New York Times, May 16, 2013.
[62] Maarten Franssen, Gert-Jan Lokhorst, and Ibo van de
Poel. “Philosophy of Technology.” The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 edition).
Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/.
[63] Cristiano Codeiro Cruz. “Decolonizing Philosophy of
Technology: Learning from Bottom-Up and Top-Down
Approaches to Decolonial Technical Design.”
Philosophy & Technology, 24: 1847–1881, 2021.
[64] Seymour Papert. “A Critique of Technocentrism in
Thinking About the School of the Future.” Technical
report, MIT Media Lab, September 1990. Epistemology
and Learning Memo No. 2.
[65] Martin Carnoy. Sustaining the New Economy: Work,
Family, and the Community in the Information Age, p.
x. Russell Sage Foundation/Harvard University Press,
New York, NY/Cambridge, MA, 2000.
Chapter 2
Introduction
to Ethics
2.1 Introduction
IMAGINE HOVERING ABOVE THE EARTH IN A
SPACECRAFT ON A cloudless night. Looking down upon
our planet, you see beautiful constellations of artificial light
(Figure 2.1). The stars in these incandescent galaxies are our
communities.
Figure 2.1
Looking down on London, England, at night from space.
(Courtesy of NASA)
People choose to form communities because community
living has many benefits. Communities make people more
secure against external dangers, and they facilitate the
exchange of goods and services. Instead of each family
assuming responsibility for all of its needs, such as food,
housing, clothing, education, and health care, individuals can
focus on particular activities. Specialization results in higher
productivity that increases the average standard of living. In
addition, communities foster the development of fulfilling
personal relationships.
However, there is a price to be paid for community living.
Communities prohibit certain actions and make other actions
obligatory. Those who do not conform to these prohibitions
and obligations can be punished. Still, the fact that almost
everyone does live in a community is strong evidence that the
advantages of community life outweigh the disadvantages.
Responsible community members take the needs and desires
of other people into account when they make decisions. They
recognize that virtually everybody shares the core values of
life, happiness, and the ability to accomplish goals. People
who respect only their own needs and desires are taking the
selfish point of view. The ethical point of view is the
understanding that other people and their core values are also
worthy of respect [1].
People who take the ethical point of view may still disagree
over what is the proper course of action to take in a
particular situation. The facts of the matter may be
disputable, or one or both parties to the discussion may reach
conclusions that do not logically follow from the facts. At
other times, different value judgments arising from competing
ethical theories lead people to opposite conclusions. That is
why it is worthwhile to have a basic understanding of the
principles of logical argumentation as well as some of the
most popular ethical theories. You will find an introduction
to logical argumentation in Appendix B; the remainder of this
chapter focuses on presenting a variety of ethical theories,
evaluating their pros and cons, and showing how to use the
more viable ethical theories to solve moral problems.
2.1.1 Defining Terms
A society is an association of people organized under a
system of rules designed to advance the good of its members
over time [2]. Cooperation among individuals helps promote
the common good. However, people in a society also
compete with each other; for example, when deciding how to
divide limited benefits among themselves. Sometimes the
competition is relatively trivial, such as when many people
vie for tickets to a concert. At other times the competition is
much more significant, such as when two start-up companies
seek dominance of an emerging market. Every society has
rules of conduct describing what people ought and ought not
to do in various situations. We call these rules morality.
A person may simultaneously belong to multiple societies,
which can lead to moral dilemmas. For example, what
happens when a pacifist (according to the rules of their
religion) is drafted to serve in the armed forces (according to
the laws of their nation)?
Ethics is the philosophical study of morality, a rational
examination into people’s moral beliefs and behavior. The
study of ethics is particularly important right now. Our
society is changing rapidly as it incorporates the latest
advances in information technology. Just think about how
smartphones and social apps have changed how we spend
our time and interact with others! New products and services
have brought us many benefits. However, some people
misuse these technologies. Here are two examples. Texting is
a quick, inexpensive, and effective way of communicating,
but when people choose to text while driving, they put
themselves and others at risk. Social media sites promote
community-building, but when people use social media to
spread misinformation, they can weaken democratic
institutions.
2.1.2 Rationalizations
Most of us think of ourselves as good people. In fact, if a
survey of US residents is indicative, almost half of us think
we are better than everyone else we know [3]! Yet if we are
honest with ourselves, we must admit we sometimes do
things that go against our own moral standards. When we
think we can get away with it, we sometimes take advantage
of the benefits that come with lying and cheating a little bit
[4]. To maintain our self-images as good people, we hide
from ourselves and others the true reasons for our bad deeds
and generate pseudo-explanations that put them in a good
light [5, 6]. A rationalization is a moral excuse, a justification
for an immoral action.
Rationalizing is a way of “short circuiting” an ethical
analysis of a situation [5]. When we rationalize, we find a
reason explaining why it’s okay to do something, even
though it goes against our own moral sensibilities. We use
this reason to give ourselves permission to plunge ahead,
rather than stop and think about the situation in terms of our
duties, others’ rights, the action’s consequences, and what a
virtuous person would do.
Here are some examples of rationalizations people commonly
offer for doing things that fall short of their own ethical
standards [5, 7]:
Everyone else is doing it. It’s normal. Who am I to say
it’s wrong?
I am taking care of my family, friends, coworkers, or
company.
It isn’t my call. My boss has ordered me to do it.
There is no point in me losing my position by refusing
to do it. My boss will just bring in someone else who
will do it.
I am trying to achieve an important goal, and I can’t let
anything get in the way of successfully reaching it.
I don’t have the luxury of time to do a thorough
analysis of this situation.
In the long run, things will work out for the best if I do
this.
Nobody will get hurt, or at least nobody will get hurt
very much.
Yes, it will hurt them, but they are bad people, and they
deserve it.
What I’m doing isn’t so bad compared to what other
people are doing.
Think of all the good things I do.
If we wish to be ethical people, we must be aware of and
resist our natural inclination to act selfishly and to excuse our
immoral behavior with rationalizations. Instead, we should
become more committed to thoughtfully analyzing moral
situations.
2.1.3 Four Scenarios
As an initiation into the study of ethics, carefully read each of
the following scenarios. After reflection, come up with your
own answer to each of the questions.
Scenario 1
Alexis, a gifted high-school student, wants to
become a doctor. Because she comes from a family
with a low income, she plans to apply for a
scholarship in order to attend college. Some of her
classes require students to do extra research projects
in order to get an A. Her high school has a few
older PCs, but there are always long lines of
students waiting to use them during the school day.
After school, she usually works at a part-time job to
help support her family.
One evening Alexis visits the library of a private
college a few miles from her family’s apartment,
and she finds plenty of unused PCs connected to the
Internet. She surreptitiously looks over the shoulder
of another student to learn a valid login/password
combination. Alexis returns to the library several
times a week, and by using its PCs and printers she
efficiently completes the extra research projects,
graduates from high school with straight As, and
gets a full-ride scholarship to attend a prestigious
university.
Questions
1. Was Alexis deceitful?
2. Did Alexis treat anyone unfairly?
3. Did Alexis violate anyone’s rights?
4. Who benefited from Alexis’s course of action
and how great were the benefits?
5. Who was harmed by Alexis’s course of action
and how great were the harms?
6. Would you call Alexis a good role model for
other students?
7. Are there better ways Alexis could have
accomplished her objective?
8. Did Alexis do the right thing?
Scenario 2
An organization dedicated to reducing spam tries to
get Internet service providers (ISPs) in another
country to stop the spammers by protecting their
email servers. When this effort is unsuccessful, the
antispam organization puts the addresses of these
ISPs on its blocklist. Many ISPs in the United States
consult the blocklist and refuse to accept email from
the blocklisted ISPs. This action has two results.
First, the amount of spam received by the typical
email user in the United States drops by 25 percent.
Second, tens of thousands of innocent computer
users in the blocklisted country are unable to send
email to friends and business associates in the
United States.
51
Questions
1. Did the organization do anything deceitful?
2. Was the organization unfair to anyone?
3. Did the organization violate anyone’s rights?
4. Who benefited from the organization’s action
and how great were the benefits?
5. Who was harmed by the organization’s action
and how great were the harms?
6. Could the organization have achieved its goals
through a better course of action?
7. Did the organization do the right thing by
creating the blocklist?
Scenario 3
To address the problem of accidents caused by
speeding, the East Dakota State Legislature passes a
law authorizing the East Dakota State Police (EDSP)
to install video cameras on all its freeway
overpasses. The cameras are connected to
computers that can reliably detect cars traveling
more than five miles per hour above the speed limit.
Sophisticated image recognition software enables
the system to read license plate numbers and
capture high-resolution pictures of vehicle drivers. If
the picture of the driver matches the driver’s license
photo of one of the registered owners of the car, the
system issues a speeding ticket to the driver,
complete with photo evidence. The new system
receives extensive media coverage, and six months
after the system is put into operation, the number of
people speeding on East Dakota freeways is reduced
by 90 percent.
The FBI asks the EDSP for real-time access to the
information collected by the video cameras. The
EDSP complies with this request. Three months
later, the FBI uses this information to arrest five
members of a terrorist organization.
Questions
1. Did the EDSP do anything deceitful?
2. Was the EDSP unfair to anyone?
3. Did the EDSP violate anyone’s rights?
52
4. Who benefited from the actions of the EDSP
and how great were the benefits?
5. Who was harmed by the actions of the EDSP
and how great were the harms?
6. What other courses of action could the EDSP
have taken to achieve its objectives?
7. Did the EDSP do the right thing by complying
with the request of the FBI?
Scenario 4
You are the senior software engineer at a start-up
company developing an exciting new mobile app
that will allow salespeople to generate and email
sales quotes and customer invoices from their
smartphones. You were given stock options when
you joined the company, and if it has a successful
initial public offering of stock, you will be able to
sell these options for at least $10 million.
Your company’s sales force has led a major
corporation to believe your product will be
available next week. Unfortunately, at this point the
software still contains quite a few bugs. The leader
of the testing group has reported that all of the
known bugs appear to be minor, but it will take
another month of testing for his team to be
confident the product contains no catastrophic
errors.
Because of the fierce competition in the mobile app
industry, it is critical that your company be “first to
market.” To the best of your knowledge, a wellestablished company will release a similar product
in a few weeks. If its product appears first, your
start-up company will probably go out of business.
Consider at least three possible actions, and for
each of them, answer the following questions.
Questions
1. What are the most likely benefits and harms
that will result from this action?
2. Do you have any obligations to people who
may be negatively affected by your action?
3. Does this action require you to be dishonest,
deceitful, or unfair to others?
Now that you have answered the three questions for
each of your possible actions, what do you think is
the right action to take?
Reflect on the process you used in each scenario to come up
with your answers. How did you decide if particular actions
or decisions were right or wrong? Were your reasons
consistent from one case to the next? If someone disagreed
with you on the answer to one of these questions, how would
you try to convince that person that your position makes
more sense?
Ethics is the rational, systematic analysis of conduct that can
cause benefit or harm to other people. Because ethics is based
in reason, people are required to explain why they hold the
opinions they do. This gives us the opportunity to compare
ethical evaluations. When two people reach different
conclusions, we can weigh the facts and the reasoning process
behind their conclusions to determine the stronger line of
thinking.
It’s important to note that ethics is focused on the voluntary,
moral choices people make because they have decided they
ought to take one course of action rather than an alternative.
Ethics is not concerned about involuntary choices or choices
outside the moral realm.
For example, if I am ordering a new car, I may get to choose
whether it is red, white, green, or blue. This choice is not in
the moral realm, because it does not involve benefit or harm
to other people.
Now, suppose I’m driving my new red car down a city street.
A pedestrian, obscured from my view by a parked car, runs
out into traffic. In an attempt to miss the pedestrian, I
swerve, lose control of my car, and kill another pedestrian
walking along the sidewalk. While my action caused harm to
another person, this is not an example of ethical decision
making, because my decision was a reflex action rather than
a reasoned choice.
However, suppose I did not have full control of the car
because I had been driving while intoxicated. In that case the
consequences of my voluntary choice to drink alcohol before
driving affected another moral being (the innocent
pedestrian). Now the problem has entered the realm of ethics.
2.1.4 Overview of Ethical
Theories
The formal study of ethics goes back at least 2,400 years, to
the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates did not put any of
his philosophy in writing, but his student Plato did. In Plato’s
dialogue called the Crito, the imprisoned Socrates uses ethical
reasoning to explain why he ought to face an unjust death
penalty rather than take advantage of an opportunity to flee
into exile with his family [8].
Since the time of Socrates and Plato, philosophers have
continued to develop the field of ethics by proposing and
defending many different ethical theories. In this chapter we
review some of them. How do we decide if a particular
theory is useful? A useful theory allows its proponents to
examine moral problems, reach conclusions logically, and
defend those conclusions in front of a skeptical, yet openminded audience (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2
A good ethical theory should enable you to make a persuasive, logical
argument to a diverse audience.
Suppose you and I are debating a moral problem in front of a
nonpartisan crowd. You have concluded that a particular
course of action is right, while I believe it is wrong. It is only
natural for me to ask you, “Why do you think doing suchand-such is right?” If you are unable to give any logical
reasons why your position is correct, you are unlikely to
persuade anyone. On the other hand, if you can explain the
chain of reasoning that led you to your conclusion, you will
be more likely to convince the audience that your position is
correct. At the very least you will help reveal where there are
disputed facts or values. Therefore, we will reject proposed
ethical theories that are not based on reasoning from facts or
commonly accepted values.
In the following sections we consider nine ethical theories—
nine frameworks for moral decision making. We present the
motivation or insight underlying each theory, explain how it
can be used to determine whether an action is right or wrong,
and give the “case for” and the “case against” the theory.
The workable theories will be those that both respect the
ethical point of view and make it possible for a person to
present a persuasive, logical argument to a diverse audience
of skeptical, yet open-minded people.
2.2 Subjective
Relativism
Ethical relativism is the theory that there are no universal
moral norms of right and wrong. According to this theory,
different individuals or groups of people can have completely
opposite views of a moral problem, and both can be right.
Two particular kinds of ethical relativism we’ll discuss are
subjective relativism and cultural relativism.
Subjective relativism holds that each person decides right and
wrong for himself or herself. This notion is captured in the
popular expression, “What’s right for you may not be right
for me.”
2.2.1 The Case For
Subjective Relativism
1. Well-meaning and intelligent people can have totally
opposite opinions about moral issues.
For example, consider the issue of legalized abortion in
the United States. There are a significant number of
rational people on each side of the issue. Subjective
relativists would contend that the reason people cannot
reach the same conclusion is that morality is not like
gravity; it is not something “out there” that rational
people can discover and try to understand. Instead,
each of us creates his or her own morality.
2. Ethical debates are disagreeable and pointless.
Going back to the example of abortion, the debate in
the United States has been going on for more than 50
years. An agreement about whether abortion is right or
wrong may never be reached. Nobody is all-knowing.
When faced with a difficult moral problem, who is to
say which side is correct? If morality is relative, we do
not have to try to reconcile opposing views. Both sides
are right.
2.2.2 The Case Against
Subjective Relativism
1. With subjective relativism the line between doing what
you think is right and doing what you want to do is not
sharply drawn.
As pointed out earlier in this chapter, people are good
at rationalizing their bad behavior. Subjective relativism
provides an easy excuse for someone whose conduct is
being questioned. When pressed to explain a decision or
action, a subjective relativist can reply, “Who are you
to tell me what I should and should not do?” If
morality means doing whatever you want to do, it
doesn’t mean much, if it means anything at all. Put
another way, you can't do ethics without values.
2. By allowing people to decide right and wrong for
themselves, subjective relativism makes no moral
distinction between the actions of different people.
The fact is that some people have caused millions to
suffer, while others have led lives of great service to
humanity. Suppose both Adolf Hitler and Mahatma
Gandhi spent their entire lives doing what they thought
was the right thing to do. Do you want to give both of
them credit for living good lives?
A modification of the original formulation of subjective
relativism might be, “I can decide what’s right for me,
as long as my actions don’t hurt anybody else.” That
solves the problem of Adolf Hitler versus Mahatma
Gandhi. However, as soon as you introduce the idea
that you shouldn’t harm others, you must come to an
agreement with others about what it means to harm
someone. At this point the process is no longer
subjective or completely up to the individual. In other
words, a statement of the form, “I can decide what’s
right for me, as long as my actions don’t hurt anyone
else,” is a statement expressing a universal norm, which
is inconsistent with subjective relativism.
3. Subjective relativism and tolerance are two different
things.
Some people may be attracted to ethical relativism
because they believe in tolerance. There is a lot to be
said for tolerance. It allows individuals in a pluralistic
society like the United States to live in harmony.
However, tolerance is not the same thing as subjective
relativism. Subjective relativism holds that individuals
decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
If you are a tolerant person, is it okay with you if some
people decide they want to be intolerant? What if some
people decide that they will only deal fairly with people
of their own racial group? You can’t say that racial
bigotry is wrong without undermining the foundation
of subjective relativism, because any statement of the
form, “People ought to be tolerant,” is an example of a
universal moral norm, or rule. Relativism is based on
the idea that there are no universal moral norms, so a
blanket statement about the need for tolerance is
incompatible with subjective relativism.
4. We should not give legitimacy to an ethical theory that
allows people to make decisions based on something
other than reason.
If individuals decide for themselves what is right and
what is wrong, they can reach their conclusions by any
means they see fit. They may choose to base their
decisions on something other than logic and reason,
such as the rolling of dice or the turning of tarot cards.
This path is contrary to using logic and reason.
If your goal is to persuade others that your solutions to
actual moral problems are correct, adopting subjective
relativism is self-defeating because it is based on the idea that
people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
According to subjective relativism, nobody’s conclusions are
any more valid that anyone else’s, no matter how these
conclusions are drawn. Therefore, we reject subjective
relativism as a workable ethical theory.
2.3 Cultural
Relativism
If subjective relativism is unworkable, what about different
views of right and wrong held by different societies at the
same point in time, or those held by the same society at
different points in time?
In the modern era, anthropologists have collected evidence of
societies with moral codes markedly different from each
other. William Graham Sumner described the evolution of
“folkways,” which he argues eventually become
institutionalized into the moral guidelines of a society:
The first task of life is to live. . . . The struggle to maintain
existence was not carried on individually but in groups. Each
profited by the other’s experience; hence there was concurrence
towards that which proved to be the most expedient. All at last
adopted the same way for the same purpose; hence the ways
turned into customs and became mass phenomena. Instincts were
learned in connection with them. In this way folkways arise. The
young learn by tradition, imitation, and authority. The folkways,
at a time, provide for all the needs of life then and there. They are
uniform, universal in the group, imperative, and invariable. As
time goes on, the folkways become more and more arbitrary,
positive, and imperative. If asked why they act in a certain way in
certain cases, primitive people always answer that it is because
they and their ancestors always have done so. . . . The morality of
a group at a time is the sum of the taboos and prescriptions in the
folkways by which right conduct is defined. . . . “Good” mores are
those which are well adapted to the situation. “Bad” mores are
those which are not so well adapted. [9]
Cultural relativism is the ethical theory that the meaning of
“right” and “wrong” rests with a society’s actual moral
guidelines. These guidelines vary from place to place and
from time to time.
2.3.1 The Case For Cultural
Relativism
1. Different social contexts demand different moral
guidelines.
It’s unrealistic to assume that the same set of moral
guidelines can be expected to work for all human
societies in every part of the world for all ages. Just
think about how our relationship with our environment
has changed. For nearly all of the past 10,000 years,
human beings have spent most of their time trying to
produce enough food to survive. Thanks to science and
technology, the human population of the Earth has
increased exponentially in the past century. The
struggle for survival has shifted away from people to
the rest of Nature. Overpopulation has created a host
of environmental problems, such as the extinction of
many species, the destruction of fisheries in the world’s
oceans, and the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
People must change their ideas about what is acceptable
conduct and what is not, or they will destroy the planet.
2. It is arrogant for one society to judge another.
Anthropologists have documented many important
differences among societies with respect to what they
consider proper and improper moral conduct. We may
have more technology than people in other societies,
but we are no more intelligent than they are. It is
arrogant for a person living in twenty-first-century Italy
to judge the actions of another person who lived in the
Inca Empire in the fifteenth century.
2.3.2 The Case Against
Cultural Relativism
1. Just because two societies do have different views about
right and wrong doesn’t imply that they ought to have
different views.
Perhaps one society has good guidelines and another
has bad guidelines. Perhaps neither society has good
guidelines.
Suppose two societies are suffering from a severe
drought. The first society constructs an aqueduct to
carry water to the affected cities. The second society
makes human sacrifices to appease the rain god. Are
both “solutions” equally acceptable? No, they are not.
Yet, if we accept cultural relativism, we cannot speak
out against this wrongdoing, because no person in one
society can make any statements about the morality of
another society.
2. Cultural relativism does not explain how an individual
determines the moral guidelines of a particular society.
Suppose I am new to a society and I understand I am
supposed to abide by its moral guidelines. How do I
determine what those guidelines are?
One approach would be to poll other people, but this
begs the question. Here’s why. Suppose I ask other
people whether the society considers a particular action
to be morally acceptable. I’m not interested in knowing
whether they feel personally that the action is right or
wrong. I want them to tell me whether the society as a
whole thinks the action is moral. That puts the people I
poll in the same position I’m in—trying to determine
the moral guidelines of a society. How are they to know
whether the action is right or wrong?
Perhaps the guidelines are summarized in the society’s
laws, but laws take time to enact. Hence the legal code
reflects at best the moral guidelines of the same society
at some point in the past, but that’s not the same
society I am living in today, because the morals of any
society change over time. That leads us to our next
objection.
3. Cultural relativism does not explain how to determine
right from wrong when there are no cultural norms.
Sometimes different groups within a society disagree
about whether a particular action is right or wrong.
This situation often occurs when a new technology
emerges. For example, the Internet has made possible
massive exchanges of digitized information. Millions of
people in the United States seem to think sharing
copyrighted music is okay, but other groups insist this
activity is nothing more than stealing. Who is correct?
4. Cultural relativism does not do a good job of
characterizing actions when moral guidelines evolve.
Until the 1960s many southern US states had segregated
universities. Today these universities are integrated.
This cultural shift was accelerated by the actions of a
few brave Black students who challenged the status quo
and enrolled in universities that had been the exclusive
preserve of white students. At the time these students
were doing what they “ought not” to have done; they
were doing something wrong according to the
dominant culture of those states at that time. By today’s
standards they did nothing wrong, and many people
view them as heroic figures. Doesn’t it make more sense
to believe that their actions were the right thing to do
all along?
5. Cultural relativism provides no framework for
reconciliation between cultures in conflict.
Think about the culture of the Palestinians who have
been crowded into refugee camps in the Gaza Strip for
more than 60 years. Some of these people are
completely committed to an armed struggle against
Israel. Meanwhile, some people in Israel believe the
Jewish state ought to be larger and are completely
committed to the expansion of settlements into the
Gaza Strip. The values of each society lead to actions
that harm the other, yet cultural relativism says each
society’s moral guidelines are right. Cultural relativism
provides no way out—no way for the two sides to find
common ground.
6. The existence of many acceptable cultural practices
does not imply that any cultural practice would be
acceptable.
Judging many options to be acceptable and then
reaching the conclusion that any option is acceptable is
called the many/any fallacy. To illustrate this fallacy,
consider documentation styles for computer programs.
There are many good ways to add comments to a
program; that does not mean that any commenting style
is good.
It is false that all possible cultural practices have equal
legitimacy. Certain practices must be forbidden and
others must be mandated if a society is to survive [1].
This observation leads us directly to our next point.
7. Societies do, in fact, share certain core values.
While a superficial observation of the cultural practices
of different societies may lead you to believe they are
quite different, a closer examination often reveals
similar values underlying these practices. James Rachels
argues that all societies, in order to maintain their
existence, must have a set of core values [10]. For
example, newborn babies are helpless. A society must
care for its infants if it wishes to continue. Hence a core
value of every society is that babies must be cared for.
Communities rely upon people being able to believe
each other. Hence telling the truth is another core
value. Finally, in order to live together, people must not
constantly be on guard against attack from their
community members. For this reason a prohibition
against murder is a core value of any society.
The existence of common values among all societies is a
powerful response to the contention that different social
contexts demand different moral guidelines, which is at
the heart of the argument in favor of cultural relativism.
Because societies do share certain core values, there is
reason to believe we could use these values as a starting
point in the creation of a universal ethical theory that
would not have the deficiencies of cultural relativism.
8. Cultural relativism is only indirectly based on reason.
As Sumner observed, many moral guidelines are a result
of tradition. Traditions develop because they meet a
need, but once a tradition has been established, people
behave in a certain way because it’s what they’re
supposed to do, not because they understand the
rationality deeply embedded within the tradition.
Cultural relativism has significant weaknesses as a tool for
ethical persuasion. According to cultural relativism, the
ethical evaluation of a moral problem made by a person in
one society may be meaningless when applied to the same
moral problem in another society. Cultural relativism
suggests there are no universal moral guidelines. It gives
tradition more weight in ethical evaluations than facts and
reason. For these reasons, cultural relativism is not a
powerful tool for constructing ethical evaluations persuasive
to a diverse audience, and we consider it no further.
2.4 Divine Command
Theory
The three great religious traditions that arose in the Middle
East—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—teach that a single
God is the creator of the universe and that human beings are
part of God’s creation. Each of these religions has sacred
writings containing God’s revelation.
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe that God inspired
the Torah. Here is a selection of verses from Chapter 19 of
the third book of the Torah, called Vayikra or Leviticus:
You shall each revere his mother and his father, and keep My
sabbaths. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not
reap all the way to the edges of your field, or gather the gleanings
of your harvest. You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather
the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor
and the stranger. You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully
or falsely with one another. You shall not swear falsely by My
name. You shall not defraud your neighbor. You shall not commit
robbery. The wages of a laborer shall not remain with you until
morning. You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block
before the blind. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge
against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself. [11]
The divine command theory is based on the idea that good
actions are those aligned with the will of God and bad
actions are those contrary to the will of God. Since the holy
books contain God’s directions, we can use the holy books as
moral decision-making guides. God says we should revere
our mothers and fathers, so revering our parents is good.
God says do not lie or steal, so lying and stealing are bad
(Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3
The divine command theory of ethics is based on two premises: good
actions are those actions aligned with the will of God, and God’s will has
been revealed to us.
It is important to note that the divine command theory is
subscribed to by some, but not all, Jews, Christians, and
Muslims. Fundamentalists are more likely to consider holy
books authentic and authoritative. Most sects within these
religious traditions augment holy books with other sources
when developing their moral codes.
2.4.1 The Case For the
Divine Command Theory
1. We owe obedience to our Creator.
God is the creator of the universe. God created each
one of us. We are dependent upon God for our lives.
For this reason, we are obligated to follow God’s rules.
2. God is all-good and all-knowing.
God loves us and wants the best for us. God is
omniscient; we are not. Because God knows better than
we do what we must do to be happy, we should align
ourselves with the will of God.
3. God is the ultimate authority.
Since most people are religious, they are more likely to
submit to God’s law than to a law made by people. Our
goal is to create a society where everyone obeys the
moral laws. Therefore, our moral laws should be based
on God’s directions to us.
2.4.2 The Case Against the
Divine Command Theory
1. There are many holy books, and some of their
teachings disagree with each other.
There is no single holy book that is recognized by
people of all faiths, and it is unrealistic to assume
everyone in a society will adopt the same religion. Even
among Christians there are different versions of the
Bible. The Catholic Bible has six books not found in the
Protestant Bible. Some Protestant denominations rely
upon the King James version, but others use more
modern translations. Every translation has significant
differences. Even when people read the same
translation, they often interpret the same verse in
different ways.
2. It is unrealistic to assume a multicultural society will
adopt a religion-based morality.
An obvious example is the United States. In the past
two centuries, immigrants representing virtually every
race, creed, and culture have made it their home. Some
Americans are atheists. When a society is made up of
people with different religious beliefs, the society’s
moral guidelines should emerge from a secular
authority, not a religious authority.
3. Some moral problems are not addressed directly in
scripture.
For example, there are no verses in the Bible
mentioning the Internet. When we discuss moral
problems arising from information technology, a
proponent of the divine command theory must resort to
analogy. At this point the conclusion is based not
simply on what appears in the sacred text but also on
the insight of the person who invented the analogy. The
holy book alone is not sufficient to solve the moral
problem.
4. The divine command theory is based on obedience, not
reason.
If good means “willed by God,” and if religious texts
contain everything we need to know about what God
wills, then there is no room left for collecting and
analyzing facts. Hence the divine command theory is
not based on reaching sound conclusions from premises
through logical reasoning. There is no need for a person
to question a commandment. The instruction is right
because it’s commanded by God, period.
Consider the story of Abraham in the book of Genesis.
God commands Abraham to take his only son, Isaac, up
on a mountain, kill him, and make of him a burnt
offering. Abraham obeys God’s command and is ready
to kill Isaac with his knife when an angel calls down
and tells him not to harm the boy. Because he does not
withhold his only son from God, God blesses Abraham
[12]. However, earlier in Genesis God condemns Cain
for killing Abel [13]. How, then, can Abraham’s
sacrifice of Isaac be considered good? To devout
readers, the logic of God’s command is irrelevant to this
story. Abraham is a good person, a heroic model of
faith, because he demonstrated his obedience to the will
of God.
In the divine command theory, moral guidelines are not the
result of a logical progression from a set of underlying
principles, and this is a significant problem. While you may
choose to live your life so that your actions are aligned with
God’s will, the divine command theory often fails to produce
arguments that can persuade skeptical listeners who have
different religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all. That is
why we do not consider divine command theory a workable
theory for the purposes of this book.
2.5 Ethical Egoism
In sharp contrast to the divine command theory, which
promotes a concern for others with scriptural injunctions
such as “Love your neighbor as yourself,” ethical egoism is
the philosophy that each person should focus exclusively on
their self-interest. In other words, according to ethical
egoism, the morally right action for a person to take in a
particular situation is the action that will provide that person
with the maximum long-term benefit.
This idea may sound familiar to you if you have read The
Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. The author of these novels,
Ayn Rand, espoused a philosophy akin to ethical egoism
(although you should not view this section’s description of
ethical egoism as a summary of her thinking). Rand’s moral
philosophy “holds man’s life as the standard of value—and
his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man”
[14, p. 27]. With respect to human relationships, she wrote,
“The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle
for all human relationships, personal and social, private and
public, spiritual and material” [14, p. 34].
Ethical egoism does not prohibit acting to help someone else,
but assisting another is the right thing to do if and only if it is
in the helper’s own long-term best interest. For example,
suppose I depend upon a friend to give me a ride to work
every day. If my friend’s car breaks down and she doesn’t
have $100 to fix it, I ought to loan her the money. Although
I’m out $100 until she pays me back, I’m better off giving her
the loan because I’m still able to travel to work and make
money. If I don’t lend her the money, I’ll lose my income.
Lending $100 to my friend is the right thing to do because it
provides me the maximum overall benefit [15].
2.5.1 The Case For Ethical
Egoism
1. Ethical egoism is a practical moral philosophy.
We are naturally inclined to do what’s best for
ourselves because each of us has only one life to live,
and we want to make the best of it. Unlike other moral
codes that ask us to sacrifice our own well-being for the
good of other people, ethical egoism recognizes that we
should focus on our own well-being.
2. It’s better to let other people take care of themselves.
We can’t know for sure what is good for someone else.
All too often, a “good deed” backfires and actually
does more harm than good. Even when people
appreciate something done on their behalf, it’s not
healthy. Dependence upon the charity of others leads to
a loss of self-esteem. In contrast, people who
accomplish things through their own efforts have higher
self-esteem and are able to interact with other successful
people as equals.
3. The community can benefit when individuals put their
well-being first.
When individuals act in their own self-interest, they
often benefit not only themselves but others as well. For
example, successful entrepreneurs may make a lot of
money for themselves, but they also create jobs that
strengthen the economy.
4. Other moral principles are rooted in the principle of
self-interest.
Ethical egoism is a rational philosophy. Any rational
person will figure out that it doesn’t make sense to go
around breaking promises, because eventually people
will realize that the promise breaker cannot be trusted,
and they will refuse to cooperate with that person.
Therefore, it’s not in a person’s long-term self-interest
to break promises. Likewise, it’s a bad idea to lie to
other people or cheat other people because the longterm consequences of lying and cheating are detrimental
to the person doing these things. For this reason, it can
be seen that other well-known moral principles are
actually rooted in the principle of self-interest.
2.5.2 The Case Against
Ethical Egoism
1. An easy moral philosophy may not be the best moral
philosophy.
The fact that it may be easier to live by a particular
moral philosophy is no proof that it is the best moral
philosophy to live by. Besides, the statement that ethical
egoism aligns with our natural inclination to do what’s
best for ourselves ignores the fact that our natural
inclinations often do not align with our own best
interests. For example, some students find it difficult to
pass up short-term pleasures (such as partying) in order
to achieve goals that will most likely result in long-term
benefits (such as passing the classes needed to earn a
college degree).
2. We do, in fact, know a lot about what is good for
someone else.
As we noted at the beginning of the chapter, practically
everyone shares the “core values” of life, happiness,
and the ability to accomplish goals. It’s not that hard to
figure out what would help another. The question is,
how are we going to respond to that person’s need?
Charity usually doesn’t lead to dependence; rather, it
gives someone the opportunity to become more
independent. Consider, for example, how a scholarship
can provide a promising high-school student from a
poor family with a path to a university degree, a wellpaying job, and economic self-sufficiency.
3. A self-interested focus can lead to blatantly immoral
behavior.
Here is a true story related by James Rachels [16]. An
affluent doctor in a small Southern town in the 1970s
was visited by an African American woman who had a
very low income from a variety of low-paying jobs. The
doctor quickly determined that the woman was
suffering from malnutrition. He knew that she was paid
very little money to support herself or her children.
After spending no more than five minutes with her, and
doing nothing for her, the doctor told her the charge
would be $25. The woman had only $12 to her name,
so the doctor took the $12 as payment, leaving the
woman with no money to buy food. There were no
negative consequences to the doctor as a result of his
action. According to the theory of ethical egoism, the
doctor did the right thing: he was only supposed to take
his own interest into account, and receiving $12 from
the woman was to his advantage. This answer,
however, is incorrect; what the doctor did was morally
reprehensible. The first duty of a physician is to do no
harm to the patient. By taking the malnourished
woman’s last $12, the doctor made her condition worse
by pocketing money that she could have used for food.
4. Other moral principles are superior to the principle of
self-interest.
Suppose you have the opportunity to save a drowning
person at the cost of getting one of your shirtsleeves wet
[15]. According to the theory of ethical egoism, saving a
life is the right thing to do if and only if that action will
provide you with the maximum benefit. Possible
benefits from saving a drowning person include earning
that person’s undying gratitude and gaining favorable
publicity. But isn’t this a backward and degrading way
of evaluating the action? Doesn’t it make a lot more
sense to consider the action in light of the value of a
human life? If you have the opportunity to save a
human life with no significant negative consequences to
yourself, you should do it, even if your action is not
rewarded. This example illustrates that the principle of
preserving life is superior to the principle of selfinterest.
5. People who take the good of others into account live
happier lives.
In the Framingham Heart Study, which followed 5,000
individuals over a 20-year period, scientists discovered
that happiness spreads through close relationships with
family members, friends, and neighbors [17]. In order
to create and maintain close relationships with other
people, it is necessary to consider what is good for
them.
Ethical egoism does not respect the ethical point of view. In
other words, it does not recognize that in order to reap the
benefits of living in a community, individuals must consider
the good of other community members. For this reason we
reject ethical egoism as a workable ethical theory.
2.6 Kantianism
Kantianism is the name given to the ethical theory of the
German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kant
spent his entire life in or near Königsberg in East Prussia,
where he was a professor at the university. Kant believed that
people’s actions ought to be guided by moral laws, and that
these moral laws were universal. He held that in order to
apply to all rational beings, any supreme principle of
morality must itself be based on reason. While many of the
moral laws Kant describes can also be found in the Bible,
Kant’s methodology allows these laws to be derived through
a reasoning process. A Kantian is able to go beyond simply
stating that an action is right or wrong by citing chapter and
verse; a Kantian can explain why it is right or wrong.
2.6.1 Good Will and the
Categorical Imperative
Kant begins his inquiry by asking, “What is always good
without qualification?” Many things, such as intelligence and
courage, can be good, but they can also be used in a way that
is harmful. For example, a group of gangsters may use
intelligence and courage to rob a bank. Kant’s conclusion is
that the only thing in the world that can be called good
without qualification is a good will. People with good will
often accomplish good deeds, but producing beneficial
outcomes is not what makes a good will good. A good will is
good in and of itself. Even if a person’s best efforts at doing
good should fall short and cause harm, the good will behind
the efforts is still good. Since a good will is the only thing
that is universally good, the proper function of reason is to
cultivate a will that is good in itself.
Most of us have probably had many experiences when we’ve
been torn between what we want to do and what we ought to
do. According to Kant, what we want to do is of no
importance. Our focus should be on what we ought to do.
Our sense of “ought to” is called dutifulness [18]. A dutiful
person feels compelled to act in a certain way out of respect
for some moral rule. Our will, then, should be grounded in a
conception of moral rules. The moral value of an action
depends upon the underlying moral rule. It is critical,
therefore, that we be able to determine if our actions are
grounded in an appropriate moral rule.
For Kant, an imperative is a way in which reason commands
the will. There are two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and
categorical. A hypothetical imperative is a conditional rule of
the form, “If you want X then do Y” [19]. It explains the
means you should take to achieve a particular end. An
example of a hypothetical imperative would be, “If you want
to lose weight then eat less.” A categorical imperative is an
unconditional rule: a rule that always applies, regardless of
the circumstances. For Kant, only a categorical imperative
can be a moral imperative.
What is the Categorical Imperative, the rule that all humans
should obey unconditionally, regardless of their particular
circumstances and goals? Kant proposes several formulations
of the Categorical Imperative, which he believes
communicate the same concept in different ways. We will
cover the first two formulations. Here is the first.
Categorical Imperative (First
Formulation)
Act only from moral rules that you can at the same
time will to be universal moral laws.
In other words, you should act only on moral rules that you
can imagine everyone else following without deriving a
logical contradiction [19].
To illustrate the Categorical Imperative, Kant poses the
problem of an individual in a difficult situation who must
decide if he will make a promise with the intention of later
breaking it. The translation of this moral rule could be as
follows: “A person may make a false promise when that is
the only way to escape a difficult situation.”
To evaluate this moral rule, we universalize it. What would
happen if everybody in extreme circumstances made false
promises? If that were the case, nobody would believe
promises, and it would be impossible for our individual in
distress to make a promise that anyone believed. The moral
rule self-destructs when we try to make it a universal law.
Therefore, it is wrong for a person in distress to make a
promise with the intention of breaking it.
It is important to see that Kant is not arguing that the
harmful consequences of everybody breaking promises is why
we cannot imagine turning our hypothetical moral rule into a
universal law. Rather, Kant is saying that simply willing that
our moral rule become a universal law produces a logical
contradiction.
Let’s see how. Suppose I am the person who can escape from
a difficult situation by making a promise I intend to break
later on. On the one hand, it is my will that I be able to make
a promise that is believed. After all, that’s what promises are
for. If my promise isn’t believed, I won’t be able to get out of
the difficult situation I am in. But when I universalize the
moral rule, I am willing that everybody be able to break
promises. If that were a reality, then promises would not be
believable, which means there would be no such thing as a
promise [20]. If there were no such thing as a promise, I
would not be able to make a promise to get myself out of a
difficult situation. Trying to universalize our proposed moral
rule leads to a contradiction.
Here’s another way to see why the proposed moral rule
cannot be made a universal moral law. In order for my false
promise to be believed, I want everyone except myself to be
truthful all the time. In other words, I want to privilege my
own needs and desires over those of everyone else [19].
Because there is a contradiction between what I wish to do
and how I expect others in a similar situation to act, I know
that what I am considering doing is wrong.
If you are wondering whether or not it is morally acceptable
under Kantianism to do something to someone else, mentally
reverse roles. What would you think if that person did the
same thing to you? If you cannot wish to be treated that way
by another, you have evidence that the action you are
contemplating privileges your own needs and desires and
violates the Categorical Imperative.
Kant also presents a second formulation of the Categorical
Imperative that many people find easier to work with when
doing ethical analyses.
Categorical Imperative
(Second Formulation)
Act so that you always treat both yourself and other
people as ends in themselves, and never only as a
means to an end.
To use popular terminology, the second formulation of the
Categorical Imperative says it is wrong for one person to
“use” another (Figure 2.4). Instead, every interaction with
other people must give them the dignity and respect they
deserve as autonomous, rational beings.
Figure 2.4
The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that it is
wrong for one person to use himself or another person solely as a means
to an end.
Here is an example that illustrates how we can apply the
second formulation. Suppose I manage a semiconductor
fabrication plant for a large corporation. The plant
manufactures integrated circuits on 8-inch wafers. I know
that in one year the corporation is going to shut down the
plant and move all of its production to other sites capable of
producing 12-inch wafers. In the meantime, I need new
employees to work in the clean room. Many of the best
applicants are from out of state. I am afraid that if they knew
the plant was going to shut down next year, they would not
want to go through the hassle and expense of moving to this
area. If that happens, I’ll have to hire less qualified local
workers. Should I disclose this information to the job
applicants?
According to the second formulation of the Categorical
Imperative, I have an obligation to inform the applicants,
since I know this information is likely to influence their
decision. If I deny them this information, I am treating them
as a means to an end (a way to get wafers produced), not as
ends in themselves (rational beings).
2.6.2 Evaluating a Scenario
Using Kantianism
Scenario
Rosa is the sole financial provider for her family.
She is working hard to complete her college
education while caring for her daughter. If she can
pass both courses this semester, she will graduate.
She knows her child will benefit if she can spend
more time at home.
68
One of her required classes is modern European
history. In addition to the midterm and final
examinations, the professor assigns four lengthy
reports, which is far more than the usual amount of
work required for a single class. Students must
submit all four reports in order to pass the class.
Rosa earns an A on each of her first three reports.
At the end of the term, she is required to put in a lot
of overtime where she works. She simply does not
have time to research and write the final report.
Rosa uses the Web to identify a company that sells
term papers. She purchases a report from the
company and submits it as her own work.
Was Rosa’s action morally justifiable?
Analysis
Many times it is easier to use the second
formulation of the Categorical Imperative to
analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of
view, so that’s where we begin. By submitting
another person’s work as her own, Rosa treated her
professor as a means to an end. She deceived her
professor with the goal of getting credit for
someone else’s work. It was wrong for Rosa to treat
the professor as a grade-giving machine rather than
a rational agent with whom she could have
communicated her unusual circumstances.
We can also look at this problem using the first
formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Rosa
wants to be able to get credit for turning in a report
she has purchased. A proposed moral rule might be,
“I may claim academic credit for a report written by
someone else.” However, if everyone followed this
rule, reports would cease to be credible indicators of
the students’ knowledge, and professors would not
give academic credit for reports. Her proposed
moral rule is self-defeating. Therefore, it is wrong
for Rosa to purchase a report and turn it in as her
own work.
Commentary
Note that the Kantian analysis of the moral
problem focuses on the will behind the action. It
asks the question, “What was Rosa trying to do
when she submitted under her own name a term
paper written by someone else?” The analysis
ignores extenuating circumstances that nonKantians may cite to justify her action.
2.6.3 The Case For
Kantianism
1. It treats all persons as moral equals.
A popular belief is that “all people are created equal.”
Because it holds that people in similar situations should
be treated in similar ways, Kantianism provides an
ethical framework to combat discrimination.
2. It gives all persons moral worth by considering them as
rational, autonomous beings.
Every human being has an inherent dignity and deserves
respect [19]. That is why, according to Kant, other
persons should always be treated as ends in themselves,
not merely as the means to an end. This perspective
aligns with the commonly held view that it is wrong for
one person to manipulate another.
3. Everyone is held to the same standard.
According to Kantianism, it is wrong for you to grant
yourself an exception to a principle you expect
everyone else to abide by. For example, it would be
wrong to break a legal contract and also desire that
everyone else in a similar circumstance would honor the
contract. This basic principle of justice is a natural
corollary of Kant’s view that all persons are moral
equals, and it is reflected in the proverb, “What’s good
for the goose is good for the gander.”
4. Kantianism produces universal moral guidelines.
Kantianism aligns with the intuition of many people
that the same morality ought to apply to all people for
all of history. These guidelines allow us to make clear
moral judgments. For example, one such judgment
might be the following: “Sacrificing living human
beings to appease the gods is wrong.” It is wrong in
Europe in the twenty-first century, and it was wrong in
South America in the fifteenth century.
2.6.4 The Case Against
Kantianism
1. Sometimes no single rule fully characterizes an action.
Kant holds that every action is motivated from a rule.
The appropriate rule depends upon how we
characterize the action. Once we know the rule, we can
test its value using the Categorical Imperative. What
happens when no single rule fully explains the
situation? Suppose I’m considering stealing food from a
grocery store to feed my starving children [15]. How
should I characterize this action? Am I stealing? Am I
caring for my children? Am I trying to save the lives of
innocent people? Until I characterize my action, I
cannot determine the rule and test it against the
Categorical Imperative. Yet no single one of these ways
of characterizing the action seems to capture the ethical
problem in its fullness.
2. Sometimes there is no way to resolve a conflict between
rules.
One way to address the previous problem is to allow
multiple rules to be relevant to a particular action. In
the previous example, we might say that the relevant
rules are (1) you should not steal and (2) you should try
to save the lives of innocent persons. Now the question
becomes, if we have a conflict between two rules, which
one should we follow?
Kant distinguished between perfect duties, duties we are
obliged to fulfill in every instance, and imperfect duties,
duties we are obliged to fulfill in general but not in
every instance. For example, you have a perfect duty to
tell the truth. That means you must always tell the truth
without exception. On the other hand, you have an
imperfect duty to develop your talents. If you happen to
have a talent for music, you ought to find a way to
develop it, but you do not have to take up every
instrument in the orchestra.
If we have a conflict between a perfect duty and an
imperfect duty, the perfect duty must prevail. Returning
to our example, we have a perfect duty not to steal. In
contrast, we have only an imperfect duty to help others.
Therefore, according to Kant, it is wrong to steal bread
to feed my starving children.
In this case we were fortunate because the conflict was
between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty. (Whether
the children are fortunate is debatable.) In those cases
where there is a conflict between perfect duties,
Kantianism does not provide us a way to choose
between them.
3. Kantianism allows no exceptions to perfect duties.
Common sense tells us that sometimes we ought to
“bend” the rules a bit if we want to get along with
other people. For example, suppose someone's mother
asks them if they like her new haircut, and they think it
is the ugliest haircut they have ever seen. What should
they say? Common sense dictates that there is no point
in being critical. The mother can't get her hair uncut,
no matter what anyone says. She expects a compliment,
and if she doesn't get one, she will be angry and hurt.
There just seems to be no downside to lying. Yet a
Kantian would argue that lying is always wrong
because we have a perfect duty to tell the truth. Any
ethical theory so unbending is not going to be useful for
solving “real-world” problems.
While these objections point out weaknesses with
Kantianism, the theory does support moral decision making
based on logical reasoning from facts and commonly held
values. It is culture-neutral and treats all humans as equals.
Hence it meets our criteria for a workable ethical theory, and
we will use it as a way of evaluating moral problems in the
rest of the book.
2.7 Act
Utilitarianism
The English philosophers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) proposed a theory that is in
sharp contrast to Kantianism. According to Bentham and
Mill, an action is good if its benefits exceed its harms, and an
action is bad if its harms exceed its benefits. Their ethical
theory, called utilitarianism, is based upon the principle of
utility, also called the Greatest Happiness Principle.
2.7.1 Principle of Utility
Utility is the tendency of an object to produce happiness or
prevent unhappiness for an individual or a community.
Depending on the circumstances, you may think of
“happiness” as advantage, benefit, good, or pleasure, and
“unhappiness” as disadvantage, cost, evil, or pain.
Principle of Utility (Greatest
Happiness Principle)
An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it
increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the
affected parties.
We can use the principle of utility as a yardstick to judge all
actions in the moral realm. Suppose in a particular situation
we have a set of possible actions. For each possible action, we
must determine, for each affected person, the increase or
decrease in that person’s happiness and then add up all of
these values to reach a grand total: the overall increase or
decrease in happiness caused by that particular action (Figure
2.5). We repeat this procedure for every action in the set of
possible actions. The moral action is the one that produces
the maximum increase in happiness. (If every possible action
results in a decrease in happiness, then the moral action is the
one that minimizes the decrease in happiness.)
Figure 2.5


Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility which states that an actio

Note that the morality of an action has nothing to do with
the attitude behind the action. Bentham writes, “There is no
such thing as any sort of motive that is in itself a bad one. If 
[motives] are good or bad, it is only on account of their
effects” [21]. We call utilitarianism a consequentialist theory,
because the focus is on the consequences of an action.
Act utilitarianism is the ethical theory that an action is good
if its net effect (over all affected beings) is to produce more
happiness than unhappiness. Suppose we measure pleasure as
a positive number and pain as a negative number. To make a
moral evaluation of an action, we simply add up, over all
affected beings, the change in their happiness. If the sum is
positive, the action is good. If the sum is negative, the action
is bad.
Did you notice that I used the word “beings” rather than
“persons” in the previous paragraph? An important decision
an act utilitarian must make is determining which beings are
considered to be morally significant. Bentham noted that at
one time only adult white males were considered morally
significant beings. Bentham felt that any being that can
experience pain and pleasure ought to be seen as morally
significant. Certainly, women and people of color are morally
significant beings by this definition, but in addition all
mammals (and perhaps other animals) are morally significant
beings, because they, too, can experience pain and pleasure.
Of course, as the number of morally significant beings
increases, the difficulty of evaluating the consequences of an
action also increases. It means, for example, that the
environmental impacts of decisions must often be included
when performing the utilitarian calculus.
2.7.2 Evaluating a Scenario
Using Act Utilitarianism
Scenario
A state is considering replacing a curvy stretch of
highway that passes along the outskirts of a large
city. Would building the highway be a good action?
Analysis
To perform the analysis of this problem, we must
determine who is affected and the effects of the
highway construction on them. Our analysis is in
terms of dollars and cents. For this reason we’ll use
the terms “benefit” and “cost” instead of
“happiness” and “unhappiness.”
About 150 houses lie on or very near the proposed
path of the new, straighter section of highway.
Using its power of eminent domain, the state can
condemn these properties. It would cost the state
$20 million to provide fair compensation to the
homeowners. Constructing the new highway, which
is three miles long, would cost the taxpayers of the
state another $10 million. Suppose the
environmental impact of the new highway in terms
of lost habitat for morally significant animal species
is valued at $1 million.
Every weekday, 15,000 cars are expected to travel
on this section of highway, which is one mile
shorter than the curvy highway it replaces.
Assuming it costs 40 cents per mile to operate a
motor vehicle, construction of the new highway will
save drivers $6,000 per weekday in operating costs.
The highway has an expected operating lifetime of
25 years. Over a 25-year period, the expected total
savings to drivers will be $39 million.
We’ll assume the highway project will have no
positive or negative effects on any other people.
Since the overall cost of the new highway is $31
million and the benefit of the new highway is $39
million, building the highway would be a good
action.
Commentary
Performing the benefit/cost (or
happiness/unhappiness) calculations is crucial to the
utilitarian approach, yet it can be controversial. In
our example, we translated everything into dollars
and cents. Was that reasonable? Neighborhoods are
the site of many important relationships. We did
not assign a value to the harm the proposed
highway would do to these neighborhoods. There is
a good chance that many of the homeowners would
be angry about being forced out of their houses,
even if they were paid a fair price for their
properties. How do we put a dollar value on their
emotional distress? On the other hand, we can’t add
apples and oranges. Translating everything into
dollars and cents is one way to put everything into
common units.
Bentham acknowledged that a complete analysis must look
beyond simple benefits and harms. Not all benefits have
equal weight. To measure them, he proposed seven attributes
that can be used to increase or decrease the weight of a
particular pleasure or pain:
Intensity: magnitude of the experience
Duration: how long the experience lasts
Certainty: probability it will actually happen
Propinquity: how close the experience is in space and
time
Fecundity: its ability to produce more experiences of the
same kind
Purity: extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain
or vice versa
Extent: number of people affected
As you can see, performing a complete calculation for a
particular moral problem can be a daunting prospect!
2.7.3 The Case For Act
Utilitarianism
1. It focuses on happiness.
By relying upon the Greatest Happiness Principle as the
yardstick for measuring moral behavior, utilitarianism
fits the intuition of many people that the purpose of life
is to be happy.
2. It is practical.
The utilitarian calculus provides a straightforward way
to determine the right course of action to take. Start by
identifying the set of possible alternatives. Next,
consider each of the alternatives in turn. For each
alternative, total up the anticipated positive and
negative consequences to all of the affected parties
resulting from the action. Finally, identify the
alternative with the maximum total. That alternative is
the right action to take. This process, conducted in an
open manner in which all the information is made
available to all the key stakeholders, is a good way for a
diverse group of people to come to a collective decision
about a controversial topic.
For example, suppose your state needs to build a new
prison because the number of people who are
incarcerated is growing. Everybody understands the
prison must be built somewhere in the state, but
nobody wants the prison in their neighborhood. A
panel of trusted citizens considers a variety of siting
options and, after a series of public hearings to gather
evidence, weighs the pluses and minuses of each
location. At the end of the process, the panel makes
public the individual scores and grand totals and
recommends the site with the highest grand total. While
some will be unhappy at the prospect of a prison being
built near their homes, an open and impartial process
can speed their acceptance of the decision.
3. It is comprehensive.
Act utilitarianism allows the moral agent to take into
account all the elements of a particular situation. Do
you remember the problem of having to decide what to
say about your mother’s awful haircut? Utilitarianism
allows you to take into account the emotional distress
that telling the truth would cause to you and your
mother. That harm could tilt the balance toward telling
your mother what she wants to hear.
2.7.4 The Case Against Act
Utilitarianism
1. When performing the utilitarian calculus, it is not clear
where to draw the line, yet where we draw the line can
change the outcome of our evaluation.
In order to perform our calculation of total net
happiness produced by an action, we must determine
whom to include in our calculation and how far into
the future to consider the consequences. In our highway
example, we counted the people who lost their homes
and the people who would travel the new highway in
the next 25 years. The proposed highway may cut
neighborhoods in two, making it more difficult for
some children to get to school, but we did not factor in
consequences for neighbors. The highway may cause
people to change their commutes, increasing traffic
congestion in other parts of town, but we did not count
those people either. The highway may be in existence
for more than 25 years, but we didn’t look beyond that
date. We cannot include all morally relevant beings for
all time into the future. We must draw the line
somewhere. Deciding where to draw the line can be a
difficult problem.
2. It is not practical to put so much energy into every
moral decision.
Correctly performing the utilitarian calculus requires a
great deal of time and effort. It seems unrealistic that
everyone would go to so much trouble every time they
were faced with a moral problem.
A response to this criticism is that act utilitarians are
free to come up with moral “rules of thumb.” For
example, a moral rule of thumb might be, “It is wrong
to lie.” In most situations it will be obvious this is the
right thing to do, even without performing the complete
utilitarian calculus. However, an act utilitarian always
reserves the right to go against the rule of thumb if
particular circumstances should warrant it. In these
cases, the act utilitarian will perform a detailed analysis
of the consequences to determine the best course of
action.
3. Act utilitarianism ignores our innate sense of duty.
Utilitarianism seems to be at odds with how ordinary
people make moral decisions. People often act out of a
sense of duty or obligation, yet the act utilitarian theory
gives no weight to these notions. Instead, all that
matters are the consequences of the action.
W. D. Ross gives the following example [22]. Suppose
I’ve made a promise to A. If I keep my word, I will
perform an action that produces 1,000 units of good
for him. If I break my promise, I will be able to perform
an action that produces 1,001 units of good for B.
According to act utilitarianism, I ought to break my
promise to A and produce 1,001 units of good for B.
Yet most people would say the right thing for me to do
is keep my word.
Note that it does no good for an act utilitarian to come
back and say that the hard feelings caused by breaking
my word to A will have a negative impact on total
happiness of
units, because all I have to do is
change the scenario so that breaking my promise to A
enables me to produce
units of good for B.
We’ve arrived at the same result: breaking my promise
results in 1 more unit of good than keeping my word.
The real issue is that utilitarianism forces us to reduce
all consequences to a positive or negative number.
“Doing the right thing” has a value that is difficult to
quantify.
4. We cannot predict with certainty the consequences of
an action.
In doing the utilitarian calculus, we can identify
possible consequences of an action, but we may
misjudge the certainty, intensity, and duration of these
consequences. The action may have other unforeseen
consequences that we forget to include in our
calculation. These errors may cause us to choose the
wrong course of action.
5. Act utilitarianism is susceptible to the problem of moral
luck.
As we noted in the previous point, sometimes actions
have unforeseen consequences. Is it right for the moral
worth of an action to depend solely on its consequences
when these consequences are not fully under the control
of the moral agent? This is called the problem of moral
luck.
Suppose I hear that one of my aunts is in the hospital,
and I send her a bouquet of flowers. After the bouquet
is delivered, she suffers a violent allergic reaction to one
of the exotic flowers in the floral arrangement,
extending her stay in the hospital. My gift gave my aunt
a bad case of hives and a much larger hospital bill.
Since my action had far more negative consequences
than positive consequences, an act utilitarian would say
my action was bad. That doesn’t seem fair.
Two additional arguments have been raised against
utilitarianism in general. We’ll save these arguments for the
end of the section on rule utilitarianism.
While it is not perfect, act utilitarianism is an objective,
rational ethical theory that allows a person to explain why a
particular action is right or wrong. It joins Kantianism on our
list of workable ethical theories we can use to evaluate moral
problems.
2.8 Rule
Utilitarianism
The weaknesses of act utilitarianism have led some
philosophers to develop another ethical theory based on the
principle of utility. This theory is called rule utilitarianism.
Some philosophers have concluded that John Stuart Mill was
actually a rule utilitarian, but others disagree.
2.8.1 Basis of Rule
Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism is the ethical theory that holds that we
ought to adopt those moral rules that, if followed by
everyone, lead to the greatest increase in total happiness over
all affected parties. Hence a rule utilitarian applies the
principle of utility to moral rules, while an act utilitarian
applies the principle of utility to individual moral actions.
Both rule utilitarianism and Kantianism are focused on rules,
and the rules these two ethical theories derive may have
significant overlap. However, the two ethical theories derive
moral rules in completely different ways. A rule utilitarian
chooses to follow a moral rule because its universal adoption
would result in the greatest net increase in happiness. A
Kantian follows a moral rule because it is in accord with the
Categorical Imperative: all human beings are to be treated as
ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. In other
words, the rule utilitarian is looking at the consequences of
the action, while the Kantian is looking at the will motivating
the action.
2.8.2 Evaluating a Scenario
Using Rule Utilitarianism
Scenario
A worm is a self-contained program that spreads
through a computer network by taking advantage
of security holes in the computers connected to the
network. In August 2003, the Blaster worm infected
many computers running the Windows 2000,
Windows NT, and Windows XP operating systems.
The Blaster worm caused computers it infected to
reboot every few minutes.
Soon another worm was exploiting the same
security hole in Windows to spread through the
Internet. However, the purpose of the new worm,
named Nachi, was benevolent. Since Nachi took
advantage of the same security hole as Blaster, it
could not infect computers that were immune to the
Blaster worm. Once Nachi gained access to a
computer with the security hole, it located and
destroyed copies of the Blaster worm. It also
automatically downloaded from Microsoft a patch
to the operating system software that would fix the
security problem. Finally, it used the computer as a
launching pad to seek out other Windows PCs with
the security hole.
Was the action of the person who released the
Nachi worm morally right or wrong?
Analysis
To analyze this moral problem from a ruleutilitarian point of view, we must think of an
appropriate moral rule and determine if its universal
adoption would increase the happiness of the
affected parties. In this case, an appropriate moral
rule might be the following: “If I can write and
release a helpful worm that improves the security of
the computers it infects, I should do so.”
What would be the benefits if everyone followed the
proposed moral rule? Many people do not keep
their computers up to date with the latest patches to
the operating system. They would benefit from a
worm that automatically removed their network
vulnerabilities.
What harm would be caused by the universal
adoption of the rule? If everyone followed this rule,
the appearance of every new harmful worm would
be followed by the release of many other worms
designed to eradicate the harmful worm. Worms
make networks less usable by creating a lot of extra
network traffic. For example, the Nachi worm
disabled networks of Diebold ATM machines at
two financial institutions [23]. The universal
adoption of the moral rule would reduce the
usefulness of the Internet while the various
“helpful” worms were circulating.
77
Another negative consequence would be potential
harm done to computers by the supposedly helpful
worms. Even worms designed to be benevolent may
contain bugs. If many people are releasing worms,
there is a good chance some of the worms may
accidentally harm data or programs on the
computers they infect.
A third harmful consequence would be the extra
work placed on system administrators. When
system administrators detect a new worm, it is not
immediately obvious whether the worm is harmful
or beneficial. Hence the prudent response of system
administrators is to combat every new worm that
attacks their computers. If the proposed moral rule
were adopted, more worms would be released,
forcing system administrators to spend more of
their time fighting worms [24].
In conclusion, the harms caused by the universal
adoption of this moral rule appear to outweigh the
benefits. Therefore, the action of the person who
released the Nachi worm is morally wrong.
2.8.3 The Case For Rule
Utilitarianism
1. Not every moral decision requires performing the
utilitarian calculus.
A person who relies on rules of behavior does not have
to spend a lot of time and effort analyzing every
particular moral action in order to determine if it is
right or wrong.
2. Exceptional situations do not overthrow moral rules.
Remember the problem of choosing between keeping a
promise to A and producing 1,000 units of good for A,
or breaking the promise to A and producing 1,001 units
of good for B? A rule utilitarian would not be trapped
on the horns of this dilemma. A rule utilitarian would
reason that the long-term consequences of everyone
keeping their promises produce more good than giving
everyone the liberty to break their promises, so in this
situation a rule utilitarian would conclude the right
thing to do is to keep the promise to A.
3. Rule utilitarianism solves the problem of moral luck.
Since it is interested in the typical result of an action,
the highly unusual result does not affect the goodness of
an action. A rule utilitarian would conclude that
sending flowers to people in the hospital is a good
action.
4. Rule utilitarianism reduces the problem of bias.
A weakness of act utilitarianism is that it creates the
temptation to perform a biased analysis. By asking, “Is
it okay for me to do this?” an act utilitarian may
conclude the action is acceptable by consciously or
unconsciously inflating the personal benefits and/or
deflating the anticipated harms to others. In contrast, a
rule utilitarian must ask the question, “Is it okay for
everyone in a similar circumstance to do this?” The
person who answers the latter question is more likely to
place appropriate weights on the benefits and harms of
the action.
5. It appeals to a wide cross section of society.
Bernard Gert points out that utilitarianism is
“paradoxically, the kind of moral theory usually held
by people who claim that they have no moral theory.
Their view is often expressed in phrases like the
following: ‘It is all right to do anything as long as no
one gets hurt,’ ‘It is the actual consequences that count,
not some silly rules,’ or ‘What is important is that
things turn out for the best, not how one goes about
making that happen.’ On the moral system, it is not the
consequences of the particular violation that are
decisive in determining its justifiability, but rather the
consequences of such a violation being publicly
allowed” [25]. In other words, an action is justifiable if
allowing that action would, as a rule, bring about
greater net happiness than forbidding that action.
2.8.4 The Case Against
Utilitarianism in General
As we have just seen, rule utilitarianism seems to solve
several problems associated with act utilitarianism. However,
two criticisms have been leveled at utilitarian theories in
general. These problems are shared by both act utilitarianism
and rule utilitarianism.
1. Utilitarianism forces us to use a single scale or measure
to evaluate completely different kinds of consequences.
In order to perform the utilitarian calculus, all
consequences must be put into the same units.
Otherwise we cannot add them up. For example, if we
are going to determine the total amount of happiness
resulting from the construction of a new highway,
many of the costs and benefits (such as construction
costs and the gas expenses of car drivers) are easily
expressed in dollars. Other costs and benefits are
intangible, but we must express them in terms of dollars
in order to find the total amount of happiness created
or destroyed as a result of the project. Suppose a
sociologist informs the state that if it condemns 150
homes, it is likely to cause five divorces among the
families being displaced. How do we assign a dollar
value to that unfortunate consequence? In certain
circumstances utilitarians must quantify the value of a
human life. How can the value of a human life be
reduced to an amount of money?
2. Utilitarianism ignores the problem of an unjust
distribution of good consequences.
Another criticism of utilitarianism in general is that the
utilitarian calculus is solely interested in the total
amount of happiness produced. Suppose one course of
action results in every member of a society receiving
100 units of good, while another course of action
results in half the members of society receiving 201
units of good each, with the other half receiving
nothing. According to the calculus of utility, the second
course of action is superior because the total amount of
good is higher. That doesn’t seem right to many people.
A possible response to this criticism is that our goal
should be to promote the greatest good to the greatest
number. In fact, that is how utilitarianism is often
described. A person subscribing to this philosophy
might say that we ought to use two principles to guide
our conduct: (1) we should act so that the greatest
amount of good is produced, and (2) we should
distribute the good as widely as possible. The first of
these principles is the principle of utility, but the second
is a principle of distributive justice. In other words, to
“act so as to promote the greatest good to the greatest
number” is not pure utilitarianism. The proposed
philosophy is not internally consistent, because there
are times when the two principles conflict. In order to
be useful, the theory also needs a procedure to resolve
conflicts between the two principles. We’ll talk more
about the principle of distributive justice in the next
section.
The criticisms leveled at utilitarianism point out
circumstances in which it seems to produce the “wrong”
answer to a moral problem. However, rule utilitarianism
treats all persons as equals and provides its adherents with
the ability to give the reasons why a particular action is right
or wrong. Hence we consider it a third workable theory for
evaluating moral problems, joining Kantianism and act
utilitarianism.
2.9 Social Contract
Theory
In the spring of 2003, a coalition of military forces led by the
United States invaded Iraq and removed the government of
Saddam Hussein. When the police disappeared, thousands of
Baghdad residents looted government ministries [26].
Sidewalk arms merchants did a thriving business selling AK47 assault rifles to homeowners needing protection against
thieves. Are Iraqis much different from residents of other
countries, or should we view the events in Baghdad as the
typical response of people to a lack of governmental
authority and control?
2.9.1 The Social Contract
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) lived during the
English civil war and saw firsthand the terrible consequences
of social anarchy. In his book Leviathan, he argues that
without rules and a means of enforcing them, people would
not bother to create anything of value, because nobody could
be sure of keeping what they created. Instead, people would
be consumed with taking what they needed and defending
themselves against the attacks of others. They would live in
“continuall feare, and danger of violent death,” and their
lives would be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”
[27].
To avoid this miserable condition, which Hobbes calls the
“state of nature,” rational people understand that
cooperation is essential. However, cooperation is possible
only when people mutually agree to follow certain guidelines.
Hence moral rules are “simply the rules that are necessary if
we are to gain the benefits of social living” [10, p. 141].
Hobbes argues that everybody living in a civilized society has
implicitly agreed to two things: (1) the establishment of such
a set of moral rules to govern relations among citizens and
(2) a government capable of enforcing these rules. He calls
this arrangement the social contract.
The Franco-Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–
1778) continued the evolution of social contract theory. In
his book The Social Contract, he writes, “Since no man has
any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone
bestows no right, all legitimate authority among men must be
based on covenants” [28, p. 53]. Rousseau states that the
critical problem facing society is finding a form of association
that guarantees everybody their safety and property, yet
enables each person to remain free. The answer, according to
Rousseau, is for everybody to give themselves and their rights
to the whole community. The community will determine the
rules for its members, and each of its members will be obliged
to obey the rules. What prevents the community from
enacting bad rules is that no one is above the rules. Since
everyone is in the same situation, no community members
will want to put unfair burdens on others because that would
mean putting unfair burdens on themselves.
Social contract theory must deal with the reality that it’s easy
for an individual to rationalize selfish behavior, as noted
earlier in this chapter. How do we prevent people from
shirking their duties to the group? Suppose Bill owes the
government $10,000 in taxes, but he discovers a way to cheat
on his taxes so it appears he owes only $8,000. Bill thinks to
himself, “The government gets billions of dollars a year in
taxes. So to the government another $2,000 is just a drop in
the bucket. But to me, $2,000 is a lot of money.” What
restrains Bill from acting selfishly and cheating on his taxes is
the knowledge that if he is caught, he will be punished. In
order for the social contract to function, society must provide
not only a system of laws but a system of enforcing the laws
as well.
According to Rousseau, living in a civil society gives a
person’s actions a moral quality they would not have if that
person lived in a state of nature. “It is only then, when the
voice of duty has taken the place of physical impulse, and
right that of desire, that man, who has hitherto thought only
of himself, finds himself compelled to act on other principles,
and to consult his reason rather than study his inclinations”
[28, p. 64].
James Rachels summarizes these ideas in an elegant definition
of social contract theory.
Social Contract Theory
Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how
people are to treat one another, that rational people
will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the
condition that others follow those rules as well [10,
p. 145].
Hobbes, John Locke, and many other philosophers of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries held that all morally
significant beings have certain rights, such as the right to life,
liberty, and property. Some modern philosophers would add
other rights to this list, such as the right to privacy.
There is a close correspondence between rights and duties. If
you have the right to life, then others have the duty or
obligation not to kill you. If you have a right to free health
care when you are ill, then others have the duty to make sure
you receive it. Rights can be classified according to the duties
they put on others. A negative right is a right that another
can guarantee by leaving you alone to exercise your right. For
example, the right of free expression is a negative right. In
order for you to have that right, all others have to do is not
interfere with you when you express yourself. A positive right
is a right that obligates others to do something on your
behalf. The right to a free education is a positive right. In
order for you to have that right, the rest of society must
allocate resources so that you may attend school.
Another way to view rights is to consider whether they are
absolute or limited. An absolute right is a right that is
guaranteed without exception. Negative rights, such as the
right to life, are usually considered absolute rights. A limited
right is a right that may be restricted based on the
circumstances. Typically, positive rights are considered to be
limited rights. For example, US states guarantee their citizens
the right to an education. However, because states do not
have unlimited budgets, they typically provide a free
education for everyone up through the 12th grade but require
people to pay for at least some of the costs of their higher
education.
Proponents of social contract theory evaluate moral problems
from the point of view of moral rights. In contrast, Kantians
evaluate moral problems from duties or obligations, since
Kant argued that rights follow from duties.
2.9.2 Rawls’s Theory of
Justice
John Rawls (1921–2002) did much to revive interest in social
contract theory in the twentieth century. Rawls notes that
both cooperative and competitive behavior can be found in
every society. People form societies because social
cooperation produces more benefits than a situation in which
individuals are completely on their own. On the other hand,
there is competition regarding how the benefits are divided
among the members of society, since everyone would rather
have more than less benefits. To be well ordered, a society
must establish the rights and duties of its members and also
determine a just way of distributing “the benefits and
burdens of social cooperation” [2, p. 4].
How can people agree on what these principles of justice
should be, when the natural inclination for each person
would be to propose principles that would benefit himself or
herself? To prevent people from selfishly promoting their
own interests, Rawls proposes a thought experiment: the
principles are determined from an original position in which
each person is hidden behind a veil of ignorance. People must
agree to the principles before they know what place they will
hold in society; they are ignorant of their sex, race, ethnicity,
wealth, intellectual capacity, physical abilities or disabilities,
and so on. Rawls claims that agreements reached from this
initial condition would be fair because people would not
choose principles that would harm them if they turned out to
be in a disadvantaged position in society relative to others.
He proposes that rational people put behind a veil of
ignorance would agree upon the following two principles of
justice.
John Rawls’s Principles of
Justice
1. Each person may claim a “fully adequate”
number of basic rights and liberties, such as
freedom of thought and speech, freedom of
association, the right to be safe from harm,
and the right to own property, so long as
these claims are consistent with everyone else
having a claim to the same rights and liberties.
2. Any social and economic inequalities must
satisfy two conditions: first, they are
associated with positions in society that
everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to
assume; and second, they are “to be to the
greatest benefit of the least-advantaged
members of society (the difference principle)”
[29, pp. 42–43].
Rawls’s first principle of justice, illustrated in Figure 2.6, is
quite close to our original definition of social contract theory,
except that it is stated from the point of view of rights and
liberties rather than moral rules. The second principle of
justice, however, focuses on the question of social and
economic inequalities. It is hard to imagine a society in which
every person has equal standing. For example, it is unrealistic
to expect every person to be involved in every civic decision.
Instead, we elect representatives who vote in our place and
officials who act on our behalf. Likewise, it is hard to
imagine everybody in a society having equal wealth. If we
allow people to hold private property, we should expect that
some people will acquire more than others. According to
Rawls, social and economic inequalities are acceptable if they
meet two conditions.
Figure 2.6
Rawls’s first principle of justice states that each person may have a “fully
adequate” number of rights and liberties as long as they are consistent
with everyone else having the same rights and liberties.
First, every person in the society should have an equal chance
to assume a position of higher social or economic standing.
That means that two people born with equal intelligence,
equal talents, and equal motivation to use them wisely should
have the same probability of reaching an advantaged
position, regardless of the social or economic class to which
they were born. For example, the fact that someone’s last
name is Bush or Clinton should not give that person a greater
probability of being elected president of the United States
than any other citizen born with equal intelligence, talent,
and determination.
The second condition, called the difference principle, states
that social and economic inequalities must be justified. The
only way to justify a social or economic inequality is to show
that its overall effect is to provide the most benefit to the
least advantaged. The purpose of this principle is to help
maintain a society composed of free and equal citizens. An
example of the difference principle in action is a graduated
income tax system in which people with higher incomes pay a
higher percentage of their income in taxes (Figure 2.7). An
example of a violation of the difference principle would be a
military draft system in which poor people had a higher
probability of being drafted than wealthy people.
Figure 2.7
Suppose both of these income tax structures will produce the same
income to the government. Plan A is a flat tax in which every citizen pays
the same percentage of their income; plan B is a progressive tax in which
the income tax rate gradually rises as a citizen’s income increases. Plan B
does not treat every citizen equally, but the inequality is justified under
Rawls’s difference principle because it is of greatest benefit to the most
disadvantaged.
2.9.3 Evaluating a Scenario
Using Social Contract
Theory
Scenario
Hao, the owner of a chain of convenience stores,
uses a computer to keep track of the items
purchased by each customer. Using this
information, he is able to construct profiles of the
customers: who is responsible for the care of an
infant, who owns a pet, who uses a barbeque, etc.
Hao sells these profiles to mail-order companies.
The customers begin receiving many unsolicited
mail-order catalogs. Some of the customers are
happy to receive these catalogs and make use of
them to order products. Others are unhappy at the
increase in the amount of “junk mail” they are
receiving.
Analysis
To analyze this scenario using social contract
theory, we think about the rights of the rational
agents involved. In this case, the rational agents are
Hao, his customers, and the mail-order companies.
The morality of Hao’s actions revolve around the
question of whether he violated the privacy rights of
his customers. If someone rents a DVD from one of
Hao’s stores, both the customer and Hao have
information about the transaction. Are their rights
to this information equal? If both the customer and
Hao have equal rights to this information, then you
may conclude there is nothing wrong with him
selling this information to a mail-order company.
On the other hand, if customers have the right to
expect transactions to be confidential, you may
conclude that Hao was wrong to sell this
information without gaining the permission of the
customer.
2.9.4 The Case For Social
Contract Theory
1. It is framed in the language of rights.
The cultures of many modern countries, particularly
Western-style democracies, promote individualism. For
people raised in these cultures, the concept of individual
rights is powerful and attractive.
2. It is based on a solid understanding of human nature,
recognizing that rational people act out of self-interest
in the absence of a common agreement.
The tragedy of the commons is a modern term used to
describe a situation in which individuals benefit from
exploiting a resource, while the costs of the exploitation
are shared by a community. The term comes from a
paper written in England in the 1830s. In medieval
England many villages had commons on which herders
were allowed to graze their cattle. Sometimes shepherds
grazed their sheep on the commons, which was
problematic because sheep can overgraze pastures much
quicker than cattle. Since an individual shepherd profits
from allowing their sheep to overgraze the commons,
and no shepherd can save the commons from
overgrazing by restraining their sheep if other shepherds
allowed their own sheep to overgraze, the rational
economic decision for every shepherd is to become a
free rider and allow their sheep to overgraze the
commons. Unfortunately, too many free riders destroy
the shared resource and harm the entire community.
The way to prevent this consequence is for the
community to establish a law against overgrazing, a
punishment associated with breaking the law, and a
system of law enforcement. Each shepherd will be
restrained from acting selfishly by the knowledge that if
they are caught, they will be punished.
Social contract theory is based on the idea that morality
is the result of an implicit agreement among rational
beings who understand that there is a tension between
self-interest and the common good. The common good
is best realized when everyone cooperates. Cooperation
occurs when those acting selfishly suffer negative
consequences.
You might ask, “If everyone has a right to liberty, how
can we imprison someone who has committed a
crime?” The social contract is based on the notion that
everyone benefits when everyone bears the burden of
following certain rules. Knowledge that those who do
not follow the rules will be punished restrains
individuals from selfishly flouting their obligations.
People will have this knowledge only if society punishes
those who commit crimes.
3. It explains why under certain circumstances civil
disobedience can be the morally right decision.
Consider the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1960s. On
February 1, 1960, four African American students from
North Carolina A&T walked into the Woolworth’s
store on South Elm Street in Greensboro, sat down at a
whites-only lunch counter, and asked for service. When
they were denied service, they refused to leave, sitting at
their stools until the store closed. Two days later,
eighty-five students participated in the sit-in at
Woolworth’s. All of these students were breaking
segregation laws, but according to social contract
theory, their actions could be considered morally
justified. As we have said, the social contract is based
on the idea that everyone receives certain benefits in
return for bearing certain burdens. The segregation
laws were designed to give Black people greater burdens
and fewer benefits than white people. Therefore, they
were unjust.
2.9.5 The Case Against
Social Contract Theory
1. None of us signed the social contract.
The social contract is not a real contract. Since none of
us have actually agreed to the obligations of citizens set
forth in our society, why should we be bound by them?
Defenders of social contract theory point out that the
social contract is a theoretical notion that is supposed
to explain the rational process through which
communities adopt moral guidelines. As John Rawls
puts it, social contract agreements are hypothetical and
nonhistorical. They are hypothetical in the sense that
they are what reasonable people “could, or would,
agree to, not what they have agreed to” [29, p. 16].
They are nonhistorical because they “do not suppose
the agreement has ever, or indeed ever could actually be
entered into” [29, pp. 16–17]. Furthermore, even if it
could be entered into, that would make no difference.
The reason it would make no difference is because the
moral guidelines are supposed to be the result of
analysis (facts and values plus logical reasoning), not
history. Social contract theory is not cultural relativism
in disguise.
2. Some actions can be characterized in multiple ways.
This is a problem social contract theory shares with
Kantianism. Some situations are complicated and can
be described in more than one way. Our
characterization of a situation can affect the rules or
rights we determine to be relevant to our analysis.
3. Social contract theory does not explain how to solve a
moral problem when the analysis reveals conflicting
rights.
This is another problem social contract theory shares
with Kantianism. Consider the knotty moral problem of
abortion, in which the mother’s right to liberty is pitted
against the fetus’s right to life. As long as each of these
rights is embraced by one side in the controversy, the
issue cannot be resolved. What typically happens in
debates is that advocates on one side of the issue
“solve” the problem by discounting or denying the right
invoked by their adversaries.
4. Social contract theory may be unjust to those people
who are incapable of upholding their side of the
contract.
Social contract theory provides every person with
certain rights in return for that person bearing certain
burdens. When a person does not follow the moral
rules, they are punished. What about human beings
who, through no fault of their own, are unable to
follow the moral rules?
A response to this objection is that there is a difference
between someone who deliberately chooses to break a
moral rule and someone who is incapable of
understanding a rule. Society must distinguish between
these two groups of people. People who deliberately
break moral rules should be punished, but people who
cannot understand a rule must be cared for.
However, this response overlooks the fact that
distinguishing between these two groups of people can
be difficult. For example, how should people who use
drugs and who steal to fund their usage habits be
treated? Some countries treat their behavior as criminal
and imprison them. Other countries consider their
behavior an effect of mental illness and treat them as
patients in a hospital.
These criticisms demonstrate some of the weaknesses of
social contract theory. Nevertheless, social contract theory is
logical and analytical. It allows people to explain why a
particular action is moral or immoral. According to our
criteria, it is a workable ethical theory, joining Kantianism,
act utilitarianism, and rule utilitarianism as a way of
evaluating moral problems.
2.10 Virtue Ethics
Some moral philosophers criticize Kantianism, utilitarianism,
and social contract theory because they ignore what these
philosophers consider to be important aspects of living a
moral life, including moral education, moral wisdom, family
and social relationships, and the role of emotions [30]. Over
the past several decades there has been a resurgence of
interest in virtue ethics, an ethical theory that accounts for all
of these factors.
Unlike Kantianism, utilitarianism, and social contract theory,
which grew out of the Enlightenment, virtue ethics can be
traced all the way back to ancient China and Greece.
Confucianism, dating back to the fifth century BC,
emphasizes the importance of the cultivation of virtues and
the development of strong moral character in order to live a
good life. In Greece, the notion of arete, usually translated as
virtue or excellence, refers to reaching one’s highest potential.
An influential treatment of virtue appears in Aristotle’s
Nicomachean Ethics, written in the fourth century BC. In this
book Aristotle expresses the opinion that the path to true
happiness and genuine flourishing as a human being lies in
living a life of virtue [31].
2.10.1 Virtues and Vices
According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of virtues:
intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are
those virtues associated with reasoning and truth. Moral
virtues, often called virtues of character by today’s writers,
are habits or dispositions formed through the repetition of
the relevant virtuous actions (Figure 2.8). For example, you
can develop the moral virtue of honesty by habitually telling
the truth or performing other honest actions. In this section
our primary focus is on the moral virtues.
Figure 2.8

According to Aristotle, happiness derives from living a life of virtue. You
acquire moral virtues by repeating the appropriate acts

A moral virtue is a deep-seated character trait. Consider
someone who possesses the virtue of honesty, for example.
An honest person will tell the truth as a matter of course, will
be uncomfortable with even the thought of doing something
deceitful, and will not appreciate being invited by others to
join in a dishonest activity. Morally good people consistently
do what is right; it becomes second nature to them.
Note, then, that a moral virtue is not simply a disposition to
act in a particular way, it is also a disposition to feel in a
particular way. According to Aristotle, you can tell a lot

about someone’s character by observing what pleases them
and what bothers them. He wrote, “We may even go so far
as to state that the man who does not enjoy performing noble
actions is not a good man at all. Nobody would call a man
just who does not enjoy acting justly, nor generous who does
not enjoy generous actions, and so on” [31 p. 16].
Of course, some moral virtues have a more direct connection
to the emotions than others. Courage is a good example of a
virtue that has a close connection with the emotions. In order
to be courageous, you must be able to moderate your fear.
As noted earlier, a moral virtue is a deep-seated character
trait, and character traits take time to become deep-seated.
Consider a young Boy Scout who is encouraged by his
scoutmaster to take the Boy Scout slogan seriously and “do a
good turn daily.” The scout initially responds to this
encouragement by actively looking for opportunities to help
someone each day, not so much because he is interested in
being helpful, but because he looks up to his scoutmaster and
seeks his praise and approval. The young scout continues
doing daily good deeds for family members, friends, and even
strangers for a significant period of time. Eventually, he
realizes that he has persisted in his practice of doing a good
turn daily so that it has become a habit—something so
ingrained that he no longer relies upon the compliments of
his scoutmaster for motivation. His daily efforts give him a
sense of genuine satisfaction. At this point being helpful to
others has become second nature to the scout; he has become
benevolent.
When someone possessing a virtue does not exercise the
virtue, we know there is a good explanation. Suppose Angel
is known for her reliability. She does what she says she will
do, and she shows up on time for meetings. Everybody
knows they can count on Angel. One morning Angel does not
show up for a meeting she had promised to attend. When the
others notice her absence, they say, “Something must have
happened.” They understand that there must have been an
extenuating circumstance that prevented Angel from showing
up for the meeting on time.
Summary of Virtue Ethics
A right action is an action that a virtuous person,
acting in character, would do in the same
circumstances. A virtuous person is a person who
possesses and lives out the virtues. The virtues are
those character traits human beings need in order to
flourish and be truly happy.
Which virtues are those humans need in order to flourish and
be truly happy? To some extent that depends on the culture.
In Homeric Greece physical courage was prized; settlers of
the North American West put a high value on self-reliance; in
today’s multicultural society tolerance is important.
However, certain core virtues, such as honesty, justice, and
loyalty, seem to be of universal importance.
A vice is a character trait that prevents a human being from
flourishing or being truly happy. Vices, then, are the opposite
of virtues. Aristotle noticed that in many cases two different
vices can be associated with a virtue: one corresponding to an
excess and the other corresponding to a deficiency. For
example, the virtue of courage can be seen as occupying a
middle ground between cowardice (having an excess of fear)
and rashness (having a deficiency of fear). The virtue of
friendliness is somewhere in between quarrelsomeness (being
too critical of what others like or what they want to do) and
obsequiousness (giving in too easily and not being critical
enough of what others like or what they want to do).
Virtue ethics pays particular attention to the agent (the
person performing the action) as well as the action (as in
Kantianism and social contract theory) and the consequences
of the action (as in utilitarianism). A good person does “the
right thing at the right time for the right reason” [32].
According to the theory of virtue ethics, moral decision
making cannot be reduced to the routine application of a set
of rules. That is not to say there is no place for “rules of
thumb.” In order to develop the virtue of trustworthiness, for
example, it is a good idea to follow the rule of thumb “Keep
confidences.” However, under certain circumstances keeping
a confidence may not be the right course of action. Moral
wisdom or discernment takes precedence over any rule [30].
2.10.2 Making a Decision
Using Virtue Ethics
Scenario
Josh is a senior majoring in computer science at a
small university. All the seniors in computer science
are friends because they have taken most of their
computer science courses together. Josh is
particularly close to Reggie. Josh and Reggie are
from the same city about 200 miles from campus,
and Reggie has given Josh rides to and from home a
half dozen times at the start and end of school
holidays. Notably, Reggie never asked Josh to help
pay for the gas on any of these trips, and Josh never
offered to do so.
When it is time for seniors to choose partners for
their capstone project, no one is surprised when
Josh and Reggie end up on the same team.
Unfortunately, Josh and the other teammates soon
regret inviting Reggie onto their team. Everyone has
known Reggie to be hardworking, trustworthy, and
reliable, but his father just died in a car accident,
and he has lost all interest in school. To make
matters worse, Reggie is drinking too much. He
doesn’t show up for a lot of the team meetings, and
the code he produces doesn’t meet the
specifications. Josh and the other teammates can’t
persuade Reggie to take the project more seriously,
and since they don’t have any real control over his
behavior, they decide it’s easier simply to rewrite
Reggie’s part of the system themselves. Reggie does
contribute his share of the PowerPoint slides, and
during the oral presentation he stands up and talks
about “his” portion of the code, never mentioning
that it was all rewritten by his teammates.
Everyone in the class is supposed to send the
professor an email grading the performance of their
teammates. The department prides itself on
graduating students who have proven they can
work well on software development teams, and
students getting negative performance reviews from
all their teammates may be forced to repeat the
class. Reggie comes to Josh, tells him that he really
needs to pass this class because he can’t afford to
stay in college any longer, and pleads for a good
performance review. What should Josh do?
Decision
Josh must decide whether or not to disclose to the
professor that Reggie did not even come close to
doing his share of the team project, fully aware that
a negative performance evaluation may prevent
Reggie from graduating. Josh is an honest person,
and he has a hard time imagining that he could tell
the professor that Reggie did a good job when that
is far from the truth. However, Josh is also a just
person, and he feels indebted to Reggie, who has
done him a lot of favors over the past four years—
particularly those free rides to and from his
hometown. Josh also feels compassion toward
Reggie, who lost his father. It’s bad enough to lose a
parent, but because of the sudden nature of his
father’s death, Reggie didn’t even have the chance
to say goodbye to him.
90
As he ponders his dilemma, Josh begins to realize
that he finds himself in this difficult spot because at
several points in the past he didn’t step up and do
the right thing. He took advantage of Reggie’s
generosity (and gave in to his own selfish impulses)
by taking all those free rides to and from his
hometown. If he had paid his share of the gas
money, he wouldn’t be feeling so obligated toward
Reggie. Josh also knows he wasn’t a very good
friend when he failed to talk with Reggie about how
he was feeling about his father’s death and how that
was affecting his performance on the senior project.
Reggie’s lack of attention to his schoolwork was
definitely out of character, a sign that he was
suffering a lot. Josh now understands that he and
the other teammates should have had a
conversation with the professor in charge of the
senior projects when it first became apparent that
Reggie was not participating fully as a teammate.
An early intervention could have resulted in a
completely different outcome.
After reflecting on what he should do, Josh
concludes he must be truthful with the professor.
However, he will not simply tell the professor that
Reggie’s performance was mediocre. Josh decides he
will also take responsibility for his role in the fiasco
by providing a full account to the professor of how
his own failure to respond to the situation earlier in
the year contributed to the unsatisfactory outcome.
2.10.3 The Case For Virtue
Ethics
1. In many situations it makes more sense to focus on
virtues than on obligations, rights, or consequences.
Consider, for example, why it is wrong to steal to
satisfy a selfish desire. According to Kantianism, the act
is wrong because the person doing the stealing is not
treating his or her victims as ends in themselves.
According to rule utilitarianism, stealing is wrong
because the long-term consequences of everybody
stealing all the time would produce more harm than
good. The explanation from the perspective of virtue
ethics is much simpler: stealing to satisfy a selfish desire
is wrong because it disrupts one’s acquisition of the
virtue of honesty, an important step toward genuine
fulfillment and happiness.
2. Personal relationships can be morally relevant to
decision making. Recall that utilitarianism, Kantianism,
and social contract theory require us to be completely
impartial and treat all human beings as equal. This
assumption leads to conclusions that are hard for most
people to accept. For example, when a couple is faced
with the choice between using $10,000 to take their
children to Disneyland for a week or feeding 1,000
refugees who are experiencing hunger for a month, the
calculus of utility would conclude contributing to the
food security of 1,000 people was the better option.
When evaluating the same choice from the perspective
of virtue ethics, the relationship the couple has with
their children is morally relevant. Parents are supposed
to be partial toward their own children, and this can be
taken into account when determining the best action to
take.
3. Virtue ethics recognizes that our moral decision-making
skills develop over time. People develop moral virtues
by making habits of the appropriate acts. It takes time
for a person’s character to develop. Moral wisdom is
an intellectual virtue that also takes time to develop.
Each of us is on the journey from the-person-I-am to
the-person-I-am-meant-to-be, and if I am confused
about the right action to take in a particular
circumstance, I can consult a role model, someone who
more fully possesses the virtues I hope to acquire. In
many cultures people consult respected elders when
they truly want to do the right thing and feel uncertain
about the best course of action.
4. Virtue ethics recognizes the important role that
emotions play in living a moral life. Virtue ethics
recognizes that humans are not dispassionate
calculating machines. They are flesh-and-blood
creatures with feelings, and when things are going
right, their feelings and thoughts are in alignment. As
noted before, virtuous people do the right things at the
right times for the right reasons. They feel satisfied
doing good. When faced with difficult decisions, they
are deeply affected.
2.10.4 The Case Against
Virtue Ethics
1. Different people may have quite different conceptions
of human flourishing. According to virtue ethics,
virtues are character traits that humans need in order to
flourish. We do not live in a homogeneous society, and
there are a wide variety of perspectives about what
character traits lead to the most fulfilling life. If we
cannot agree on which character traits are virtues, then
we will not be able to agree on what a virtuous person
would do in a particular situation. Therefore, the virtue
ethics approach is not as powerful as Kantianism, rule
utilitarianism, and social contract theory, which
identify moral norms that are universally true.
2. Virtue ethics cannot be used to guide government
policy. Virtue ethics focuses on the agent, a virtuous
human being, more than the act or the consequences of
the act. Government policy is typically set by
government agencies or groups of officials, not
individuals. Consider the case brought up in Section
2.7.2, in which a state must decide whether or not to
replace a section of highway. An act utilitarian can
determine the monetary costs and benefits of the
proposal and reach a conclusion about the better
option. Virtue ethics has something to say about the
officials involved in the decision—they should be
honest, diligent, and prudent, for example—but it has
nothing more to contribute to the analysis.
3. Virtue ethics undermines attempts to hold people
responsible for their bad actions. According to virtue
ethics, people are not born virtuous. Instead,
intellectual and moral virtues must be acquired over
time. To a great extent, the virtues a person attains
depends upon how they are raised by their parents, the
education they receive, and the community they grow
up in. All these things are outside the control of a child.
In that case, how can we hold a person responsible if
they acquire vices instead of virtues [33]?
These criticisms show that virtue ethics is not perfect.
However, virtue ethics does provide a framework for people
to analyze moral situations, to reach a conclusion about the
right course of action, and to justify the conclusion using
logical arguments. Therefore, we determine that virtue ethics
is a workable ethical theory, along with Kantianism, act
utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract theory.
2.11 Comparing
Workable Ethical
Theories
The divine command theory, ethical egoism, Kantianism, act
utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, social contract theory, and
virtue ethics share the viewpoint that moral good and moral
precepts are objective. In other words, morality has an
existence outside the human mind. Philosophers call this view
ethical objectivism.
What distinguishes ethical egoism, Kantianism, utilitarianism,
social contract theory, and virtue ethics from the divine
command theory is the assumption that ethical decision
making is a rational process by which people can discover
objective moral principles with the use of logical reasoning
based on facts and commonly held values. Kantianism,
utilitarianism, social contract theory, and virtue ethics
explicitly take other people into consideration when defining
what makes an action morally correct, which sets these
theories apart from ethical egoism. Of all the theories we
have considered, we conclude that Kantianism, act
utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, social contract theory, and
virtue ethics are the most workable.
An act utilitarian considers the consequences of the action,
computing the total change in utility to determine if an action
is good or bad. Kantianism, rule utilitarianism, and social
contract theory are rule based. According to these theories,
an action is morally right if it is in accord with a correct
moral rule.
Each of the rule-based theories has a different way of
determining if a moral rule is correct. A Kantian relies upon
the Categorical Imperative. A rule utilitarian considers what
the long-term consequences of everyone following the rule
would be for the total good. An adherent of social contract
theory considers whether rational people would agree to
accept the rule, for everyone’s mutual benefit, provided that
everyone else agreed to follow the rule as well.
Unlike the other theories, which focus on the act itself or the
consequences of the action, virtue ethics focuses on the agent.
The purpose of the analysis is to carefully examine the action
taken by an agent in a particular situation to determine if
that action is characteristic of a virtuous person.
These differences among the theories are presented
graphically in Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9
Comparison of the five workable ethical theories. All these theories
explicitly take people other than the decision maker into consideration,
assume that moral good and moral precepts are objective, and rely upon
reasoning from facts and commonly held values.
2.12 Morality of
Breaking the Law
What is moral and what is legal are not identical. Certain
actions may be wrong, even if there are no laws forbidding
these actions. For example, some governments do not have
laws prohibiting texting while driving, but drivers are still
morally responsible for traffic accidents they cause because
they are distracted by texting. What about the opposite
situation? Is it possible that an action may be the right thing
to do, even if it is illegal?
In our discussion of social contract theory, we talked about
the morality of civil disobedience, and we concluded that
from the perspective of this theory the lunch counter sit-ins
were morally acceptable because the segregation laws being
violated were unjust. Here we are considering a different
situation. We are assuming the law is just. When this is the
case, is it possible that an illegal action may be the right
action?
To ground our analysis, we will consider a particular illegal
action: violating a licensing agreement by copying a CD
containing copyrighted music and giving it to a friend.1
2.12.1 Social Contract
Theory Perspective
Social contract theory is based on the assumption that
everyone in society ought to bear certain burdens in order to
receive certain benefits. The legal system is instituted to
guarantee that people’s rights are protected. It guarantees
people will not choose their selfish interests over the common
good. For this reason we have a prima facie obligation to
obey the law (Figure 2.10). That means, everything else being
equal, we should be law abiding. In return, our own legal
rights will be respected. Our obligation to obey the law
should be broken only if we are compelled to follow a higherorder moral obligation.
Figure 2.10



From the point of view of social contract theory, then, it is
wrong to give a friend a copy of a CD containing copyrighted
music, because that action violates the legal rights of the
person or organization owning the copyright. The desire to
do something nice for a friend is not an overriding moral
concern.
2.12.2 Kantian Perspective
The Kantian perspective is quite similar to that of social
contract theory. People need to be able to possess objects in
order to freely use them for their own purposes. According to
Kant, property rights are made possible through an implicit
common agreement. When you declare that an object is
yours, you are stating that everyone else is obliged to refrain
from using that object. Justice demands that in order for you
to make such a claim, you must also respect the similar
claims of everyone else. The state ensures that everyone meets
the obligation of respecting everyone else’s property rights.
If you were to copy a CD containing copyrighted material,
you would be violating the property rights of the copyright
owner—you would be failing to fulfill your obligations to
others as a member of civil society. Therefore, it is wrong to
copy the CD.
2.12.3 Rule-Utilitarian
Perspective
For a utilitarian, the value of laws lies in their utility. For
example, everyone should drive on the same side of the road
in order to reduce harmful accidents and improve traffic
flow, a benefit. Therefore, it makes sense to pass a traffic law
mandating that everyone drive on the same side of the road
and indicating the penalties for those who disobey the law. In
order to fund social goods such as education, parks, and the
arts, governments pass laws governing the taxes everyone
must pay.
What would be the consequences of people ignoring laws
whenever they chose? A beneficial consequence would be the
immediate happiness of the people who are doing what they
please rather than obeying the law. However, there would be
numerous harmful consequences. The people directly affected
by lawless actions would be harmed. People in general would
have less respect for the law, which would encourage more
people to break the law. Assuming increased lawlessness puts
an additional burden on the criminal justice system, society
as a whole would have to pay for having additional police
officers, prosecutors, judges, and prisons, reducing the
amount of money available to pay for social goods such as
schools, parks, and museums. Therefore, according to rule
utilitarianism, there are in general strong reasons for obeying
the law.
However, it is going too far to assume a rule utilitarian
would simply adopt the rule, “Obey the law.” Some
governments have passed laws that are positively harmful to
society. You could argue that the segregation laws in effect in
some parts of the United States until the 1960s would be in
that category. In certain circumstances the ultimate effect of
breaking a law (e.g., through civil disobedience) is the
retraction of the bad law and the institution of a new law
that has much greater utility. Taking harmful laws into
account, a more nuanced moral rule would be, “Obey the
law unless (1) the law does not maximize utility, and (2) you
have good reason to believe that the long-term net effects of
breaking the law will be greater utility.”
Does current copyright law maximize utility to society?
Copyright law represents a utilitarian compromise between
the rights of the creators of intellectual property and those
who wish access to it. The public benefits from the artistic
expressions of the creators of intellectual property. The
creators of intellectual property benefit by collecting money
from those who access their work for a certain period of
time. If everyone copied CDs containing copyrighted music,
only consumers would derive benefits. Musicians would lose
a significant source of income from writing and performing
songs, and music publishers would have no reason to
continue producing CDs. Both the quantity and quality of
music available to consumers could decline significantly.
Since it is unclear that the long-term effects of breaking the
law will be greater utility, we conclude it is wrong to copy a
CD containing copyrighted material.
2.12.4 Act-Utilitarian
Perspective
It is possible to conceive of situations where the benefits of
breaking a law are greater than the harms. Suppose I
purchase a copyrighted music CD. I play it, and I think it is
great. A friend of mine is in a terrible automobile accident.
While they recover, they will need to stay quiet for a month. I
know they have no money to spend on music. In fact, people
are doing fund-raisers simply to help their family pay the
medical bills. I don’t have money to contribute to a fund-
raiser, but I think of another way I could help them out. I can
give my friend a copy of the CD. They will be grateful for
having a diversion during their time of bed rest.
What would be the consequences of my action? The benefit
to my friend is at least $15, the price of the CD. I will be very
happy to have been able to do something that pleased them
so much. We assign the value $10 to that beneficial
consequence. As far as I can tell, there is no lost sale, because
even if I do not give my friend a copy of the CD, they are
unlikely to purchase it. In fact, giving a copy of the CD to my
friend may actually increase the sales of the CD if my friend
likes it and recommends it to other people who do have
money to spend on CDs. So there are no negative
consequences to the record label and may even be some
positive consequences. We assign a value of $0 as the
consequence to the record label. I am not likely to be
prosecuted for what I did. Therefore, there will be no impact
on the criminal justice system. No extra police detectives,
prosecutors, or judges will need to be hired as a result of my
action. The calculated consequence of my action on the legal
system has a value of $0. Adding up all the consequences, the
total is $25 worth of benefit. If I do not give my friend a copy
of the CD (i.e., do nothing), there are no consequences, so the
total benefit is $0. Therefore, making a copy of the CD and
giving it to my hospitalized friend is the right thing to do.
2.12.5 Conclusion
There is nothing intrinsically immoral about copying a CD.
However, our society has chosen to enact laws that grant
intellectual property rights to people who do creative work
and distribute it on CDs. From the perspective of social
contract theory and Kantianism, we have a prima facie
obligation to obey the law and respect everyone’s property
rights. From the viewpoint of rule utilitarianism, the
beneficial consequences of following the moral rule “Obey
the law” greatly exceed the harmful consequences. From the
point of view of all these theories, the law should be obeyed
unless there is a strong overriding moral obligation. Copying
a disc to save a few dollars or help a friend does not fall into
that category.
From an act-utilitarian viewpoint, it is possible to come up
with a circumstance where making a copy of a copyrighted
CD is the right action. However, it would be wrong to
extrapolate from this particular case and conclude that an
act-utilitarian analysis would always determine CD copying
to be morally acceptable.
his action is illegal in the United States and many other countries, but it is no
egal in every country.
Summary
We live together in communities for our mutual benefit.
Every society has guidelines indicating what people are
supposed to do in various circumstances. We call these
guidelines morality. Ethics, also called moral philosophy, is a
rational examination of people’s moral beliefs and behaviors.
In this chapter we have considered a variety of ethical
theories, with the purpose of identifying those that will be of
most use to us as we consider the effects of information
technology on society.
Ethical relativism is the idea that people invent morality. An
ethical relativist claims there are no universal moral
principles. Subjective relativism is the theory that morality is
an individual creation. Cultural relativism is the idea that
each society determines its own morality. If morality is
invented, and no set of moral guidelines is any better than
another, then there are no objective criteria that can be used
to determine if one set of guidelines is better than another.
Under these circumstances, the study of ethics is extremely
difficult, if not impossible. You can't do ethics without
values.
In contrast, ethical objectivism is based on the idea that
morality has an existence outside the human mind. It is the
responsibility of people to discover morality. An objectivist
claims there are certain universal moral principles that are
true for all people, regardless of their historical or cultural
situation. All the other theories discussed in this chapter are
based on ethical objectivism, including the five most practical
theories that we will be using throughout the rest of the
book: Kantianism, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism,
social contract theory, and virtue ethics.
Our discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these
practical theories revealed that each of them contains a
valuable insight. According to Kant, every human being is
equally valuable, and every interaction with another person
should respect that person’s rationality and autonomy.
Utilitarians understand that it’s helpful to consider the
consequences of an action when deciding whether it is right
or wrong. Social contract theory focuses on the individual
and collective benefits of protecting certain human rights,
such as the right to life, liberty, and property. Virtue ethics is
based on the idea that you can count on a good person to do
the right thing at the right time in the right way.
Our discussion of these theories also revealed that none of
them is perfect. In practice, however, there is no reason why
you should not consider virtues and duties and rights and
consequences when making moral decisions. If analyses from
all of these perspectives result in a consensus on the right
course of action, you can make the decision with confidence.
For more challenging cases, however, you will find it
impossible to come up with a virtuous course of action that
respects everyone’s rights absolutely and maximizes the total
increase in happiness. That’s when things get interesting!
Most of the scenarios discussed in the rest of the book fall
into the latter category.
In the chapters that follow, we’ll use Kantianism, act
utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, social contract theory, and
virtue ethics to evaluate a variety of situations arising from
the introduction of information technology into society.
Every analysis will be based on one of the theories, so that
you may come to a better understanding of how to apply
each theory to different situations. As you ponder these cases
and discuss them with others, you will learn more about your
own values, what kind of person you want to be, and what
kind of world you want to live in.
 urther Reading, Listening,
F
and Viewing
Nathan Colaner. “Rationalization Analysis: Ethics &
Artificial Intelligence: Case Analysis.” AI Institute in
Dynamic Systems, Episode 3. Viewed June 5, 2013.
17:46. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRMENGVmhs.
Jonathan Haidt. “The Moral Roots of Liberals and
Conservatives.” TEDTalks, September 2008. 18:40.
www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html.
Damon Horowitz. “We Need a ‘Moral Operating
System.’” TEDxSiliconValley, May 2011. 16:18.
www.ted.com/talks/damon_horowitz.
Christopher Shea. “Rule Breaker.” Chronicle of Higher
Education, June 12, 2011. chronicle.com.
Paul Solman. “Finding the Connection Between
Prosperity and Happiness.” PBS NewsHour, June 20,
2013. 9:44. video.pbs.org.
Paul Solman. “‘Pernicious’ Effects of Economic
Inequality.” PBS NewsHour, June 21, 2013. 9:24.
video.pbs.org.
Thomas Sowell. “The Fallacy of ‘Fairness.’”
Creators.com, February 8, 2010. www.creators.com.
“Rationalizations.” Ethics Unwrapped, McCombs
School of Business, University of Texas. 1:53.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/rationalizations.
Review Questions
1. Define in your own words what “the ethical point of
view” means.
2. What is the difference between ethical relativism and
ethical objectivism?
3. Two people are debating the morality of a particular
action. Person A explains why they believe the action is
wrong. Person B disagrees with person A. Their
response is, “That’s your opinion.” Person B has not
made a strong ethical argument. Why not?
4. What do we mean when we say an ethical theory is
rational?
5. What is the many/any fallacy? Invent your own
example of this fallacy.
6. Come up with your own example of a moral rule that
would violate the Categorical Imperative.
7. What is plagiarism? Describe four different ways that a
person can commit plagiarism. (See Appendix A.)
8. What is the difference between plagiarism and misuse
of sources?
9. What is the difference between a consequentialist
theory and a nonconsequentialist theory?
10. Give three examples of a situation in which your action
would be primarily motivated by a sense of duty or
obligation. Give three examples of a situation in which
your action would be primarily motivated by its
expected consequences.
11. Create your own example that demonstrates the
problem of moral luck.
12. Why do businesses and governments often use
utilitarian thinking to determine the proper course of
action?
13. Think of a real-life law or policy that violates the
difference principle.
14. Is social contract theory as first presented a
consequentialist theory or a nonconsequentialist
theory? Is social contract theory as articulated in
Rawls’s two principles of justice a consequentialist
theory or a nonconsequentialist theory?
15. Come up with a list of 20 virtues not mentioned in
Section 2.10.
16. Describe similarities and differences between subjective
relativism and ethical egoism.
17. Describe similarities and differences between divine
command theory and Kantianism.
18. Describe similarities and differences between subjective
relativism and act utilitarianism.
19. Describe similarities and differences between
Kantianism and rule utilitarianism.
20. Describe similarities and differences between act
utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
21. Describe similarities and differences between cultural
relativism and social contract theory.
22. Describe similarities and differences between
Kantianism and social contract theory.
23. Describe similarities and differences between cultural
relativism and virtue ethics.
24. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.3
from a Kantian perspective.
25. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.3
from an act-utilitarian perspective.
26. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.3
from a rule-utilitarian perspective.
27. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.3
from the perspective of social contract theory.
28. Evaluate the four scenarios presented in Section 2.1.3
from the perspective of virtue ethics.
Discussion
Questions
29. In The Portrait of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote:
“Conscience and cowardice are really the same thing”
[34]. In other words, the fear of getting caught is the
only thing that stops people from doing bad things. Do
you agree?
0
30. If everyone agreed to take the ethical point of view by
respecting others and their core values, would there be
any need for a rigorous study of ethics?
31. If you had to choose only one of the ethical theories
presented in this chapter and use it for all your personal
ethical decision making, which theory would you
choose? Why? How would you respond to the
arguments raised against the theory you have chosen?
32. Most ethical theories agree on a large number of moral
guidelines. For example, it is nearly universally held
that it is wrong to steal. What difference, then, does it
make whether someone subscribes to the divine
command theory, Kantianism, utilitarianism, or one of
the other ethical theories?
33. Suppose a spaceship lands in your neighborhood.
Friendly aliens emerge and invite humans to enter the
galactic community. You learn that this race of aliens
has colonized virtually the entire galaxy; Earth is one of
the few inhabitable planets to host a different
intelligent species. The aliens seem to be remarkably
open-minded. They ask you to outline the ethical
theory that should guide the interactions between our
two species. Which ethical theory would you describe?
Why?
34. The Silver Rule states, “Do not do unto others what
you do not want them to do unto you.” Which of the
five workable ethical theories is closest to the Silver
Rule?
35. According to the Golden Rule, you should do unto
others as you would want them to do unto you. Which
of the five workable ethical theories is closest to the
Golden Rule?
36. Are there any ethical theories described in this chapter
that would allow someone to use the argument
“Everybody is doing it” to show that an activity is not
wrong?
37. How well does Moor’s theory of just consequentialism
(described in the interview at the end of this chapter)
solve the problems associated with Kantianism and rule
utilitarianism?
38. Can moral decisions be made on a completely codified,
algorithmic basis, or are there fundamental weaknesses
to this approach to moral decision making?
39. What are some examples of contemporary information
technology issues for which our society’s moral
guidelines seem to be nonexistent or unclear? (Hint:
Think about issues that are generating a lot of media
coverage.)
40. People give a variety of reasons for copying a music CD
from a friend instead of buying it [35]. Refute each of
the reasons given below, using one of the viable
theories described in this chapter. (You don’t have to
use the same theory each time.)
a. I don’t have enough money to buy it.
b. The retail price is too high. The company is
gouging customers.
c. Since I wouldn’t have bought it anyway, the
company didn’t lose a sale.
d. I’m giving my friend the opportunity to do a good
deed.
e. Everyone else is doing it. Why should I be the only
person to buy it when everyone else is getting it for
free?
1
f. This is insignificant compared to the billions of
dollars made by some people who illegally sell
copied music
g. This is insignificant compared to the billions of
dollars’ worth of music being exchanged over the
Internet.
41. Students in a history class are asked to take a quiz
posted on the course Web site. The instructor has
explained the following rules to the students: First, they
are supposed to do their own work. Second, they are
free to consult their lecture notes and the textbook
while taking the quiz. Third, in order to get credit for
the quiz, they must correctly answer at least 80 percent
of the questions. If they do not get a score of 80
percent, they may retake the quiz as many times as they
wish.
Latoya and Omar are both taking the quiz. They are
sitting next to each other in the computer room. Omar
asks Latoya for help in answering one of the questions.
He says, “What’s the difference if you tell me the
answer, I look it up in the book, or I find out from the
computer that my answer is wrong and retake the quiz?
In any case, I’ll end up getting credit for the right
answer.” Latoya tells Omar the correct answer to the
question.
Discuss the morality of Latoya’s decision.
42. Suppose a society holds that it is wrong for one
individual to eavesdrop on the telephone conversations
of another citizen. Should that society also prohibit the
government from listening in on its citizens’ telephone
conversations?
In-Class Exercises
43. In Plato’s dialogue The Republic, Glaucon argues that
people do not voluntarily do what is right [36].
According to Glaucon, anyone who has the means to
do something unjust and get away with it will do so.
Glaucon illustrates his point by telling the story of
Gyges.
Gyges, a shepherd, finds a magic ring. He accidentally
discovers that wearing this ring renders him invisible.
He uses the power of the ring to seduce the queen, kill
the king, and take over the kingdom.
Divide the class into groups of about four students
each. Each group should discuss the following
proposition: Whenever people have the opportunity to
act unjustly without any fear of getting caught or
anyone thinking the worse of them, they do so. After a
reasonable length of time, groups should take turns
sharing their conclusions with the rest of the class.
44. Divide the class into groups of about four students
each. Each group is assigned one of the following rights
and should discuss whether that right should be
considered a legitimate positive right by our society.
After a reasonable length of time, groups should take
turns sharing their conclusions with the rest of the
class. The rights to be discussed are:
a. The right to a higher education
b. The right to housing
c. The right to health care
d. The right of a presidential candidate to receive
time on television
2
45. Is the right to life a negative right or a positive right? In
other words, when we say someone has the right to life,
are we simply saying we have an obligation not to
harm that person, or are we saying we have an
obligation to provide that person with what they need
in order to live, such as food and shelter?
Divide the class into groups of about four students
each. Half the groups should come up with reasons why
the right to life should be considered a negative right,
and the remaining groups should come up with reasons
why the right to life should be considered a positive
right. After a reasonable length of time, groups should
take turns sharing their reasons with the rest of the
class.
46. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to
debate this proposition: The citizens of a representative
democracy are morally responsible for the actions of
their government.
47. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con) to
debate this proposition: The moral guidelines for
individuals should apply to interactions among nationstates.
References
[1] James H. Moor. “Reason, Relativity, and
Responsibility in Computer Ethics.” In Readings in
CyberEthics. 2nd ed., edited by Richard A. Spinello and
Herman T. Tavani. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, MA,
2004.
[2] John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition.
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1999.
[3] Chris Melore. “Nearly Half of Americans Think
They’re a Better Person than EVERYONE They
Know!” StudyFinds (website), May 6, 2021.
https://studyfinds.org/half-americans-think-betterperson-than- everyone/.
[4] “In It to Win: Jack and Rationalizations.” McCombs
School of Business, University of Texas, 4(37),
November 12, 2012.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/jackrationalizations.
[5] “Rationalizations.” Ethics Unwrapped, McCombs
School of Business, University of Texas, 1(53).
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/rationalizations.
[6] “Rationalization.” The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy. Robert Audi, editor. Cambridge University
Press, Newyork, USA, 1999.
[7] Nathan Colaner. “Rationalization Analysis: Ethics &
Artificial Intelligence: Case Analysis.” Video. AI
Institute in Dynamic Systems, Episode 3, 17(46),
Viewed June 5, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=-bRMENGVmhs.
[8] Plato. Portrait of Socrates: Being the Apology, Crito
and Phaedo of Plato in an English Translation.
Translated by Sir R. W. Livingstone. Clarendon Press,
Oxford, England, 1961.
[9] William Graham Sumner. Folkways: A Study of the
Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs,
Mores, and Morals. Ginn and Company, Boston, MA,
1934.
[10] James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 4th
ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 2003.
3
[11] Plaut W. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, New York, NY,
1981.
[12] The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version.
Genesis, Chapter 22. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
England, 1995.
[13] The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version.
Genesis, Chapter 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
England, 1995.
[14] Ayn Rand. “The Objectivist Ethics.” In The Virtue of
Selfishness. p. 1, Signet Books, New York, NY, 1964.
[15] Douglas Birsch. Ethical Insights: A Brief Introduction.
2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 2002.
[16] James Rachels. “Two Arguments Against Ethical
Egoism.” Philosophia, 4(2–3): 297–314, April–July
1974.
[17] James H. Fowler and Nicholar A. Christakis. “Dynamic
Spread of Happiness in a Large Social Network:
Longitudinal Analysis over 20 Years in the Framingham
Heart Study.” British Medical Journal, 337(a2338): 1–
9, December 4, 2008.
[18] Lewis White Beck. “Translator’s Introduction.” In
Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. P. vii-xxiv,
2nd ed. Library of Liberal Arts/Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
[19] Michael J. Sandel. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to
Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY, 2009.
[20] William K. Frankena. Ethics. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973.
[21] Jeremy Bentham. An Introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation, p. 48. Clarendon Press,
Oxford, England, 1823.
[22] W. D. Ross. The Right and the Good. 2nd ed. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, England, 2003.
[23] Kevin Poulsen. “Nachi Worm Infected Diebold ATMs.”
Register, November 25, 2003. www.theregister.co.uk.
[24] Florence Olsen. “Attacks Threaten Computer Networks
as Students Arrive For the Fall Semester.” Chronicle of
Higher Education, 50(2): A42, September 5, 2003.
[25] Bernard Gert. “Common Morality and Computing.” In
Readings in CyberEthics. 2nd ed., edited by Richard A.
Spinello and Herman T. Tavani, p. 106. Jones and
Bartlett, Sudbury, MA, 2004.
[26] John Daniszewski and Tony Perry. “War with Iraq;
U.S. in Control; Baghdad in U.S. Hands; Symbols of
Regime Fall as Troops Take Control.” Los Angeles
Times, April 10, 2003.
[27] Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan, p. 186. Penguin Books,
London, England, 1985.
[28] Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract. Translated
by Maurice Cranston. Penguin Books, London,
England, 1968.
[29] John Rawls. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA, 2001.
4
[30] Rosalind Hursthouse. On Virtue Ethics, pp. 2–3.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1999.
[31] Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by F. H.
Peters and M. Ostwald. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, England, 1998.
[32] John Bradshaw. Reclaiming Virtue: How We Can
Develop the Moral Intelligence to Do the Right Thing
at the Right Time For the Right Reason. Bantam Books,
New York, 2009.
[33] Nafsika Athanassoulis. “Virtue Ethics.” In The Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, July 7, 2010.
www.iep.utm.edu.
[34] Oscar Wilde. The Picture of Dorian Gray, p. 14.
Bernhard Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 1908.
[35] Sara Baase. A Gift of Fire. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 2003.
[36] Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated by F. M.
Cornford. Oxford University Press, London, England,
1941.
Chapter 3
Networked
Communications
5
3.1 Introduction
ON THE EVENING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2022, THE
CELLPHONES OF 27 million californians simultaneously
blared an alarm. It wasn’t an Amber Alert, though. Instead,
the text read: “Power interruptions may occur unless you
take action.” An extreme heat wave had increased power
consumption in the state to 52,000 megawatts, and the
electrical grid was maxed out. Fortunately, the emergency
text message worked where ordinary appeals had failed.
Within 45 minutes, residents reduced their power
consumption by 2,600 megawatts, and rolling blackouts were
averted [1].
M- Pesa, Africa’s first mobile money platform, allows people
to conduct financial transactions using their mobile phones.
Millions of Africans who have never had a bank account use
their cell phones to save money, pay bills, and transfer funds
over large distances. In Kenya, where nearly every household
has an M-PESA account, access to mobile money has reduced
poverty by encouraging saving and supporting
entrepreneurship. Nearly 200,000 Kenyan women have used
M-PESA to raise their families’ incomes by shifting from
subsistence farming to business or sales occupations [2].
In 2017 the Royal Society for Mental Health interviewed 14–
24-year-olds in the United Kingdom to better understand
how their use of social media affected their mental health and
sense of well being. The survey revealed that 91 percent of
young people used social media sites. The report noted some
positive effects from the use of social media: allowing young
people to grow real-world relationships; serving as a vehicle
for positive self-expression; providing the opportunity to
learn about other people’s mental health issues and
experiences; and delivering emotional support during difficult
times. However, the report also warned that the heavy use of
social media can have detrimental effects on the mental
health of young people, by increasing feelings of anxiety,
lowering the quality of sleep, raising concerns about body
image, exposing them to cyberbullying, and heightening the
fear of missing out [3].
Before the 2016 presidential election, more than 100 proTrump Web sites were being managed from Veles, a small
town in Macedonia. The Macedonians were not Trump
supporters, but they found the creation of these sites to be an
easy way to make money. They plagiarized stories from right-
wing sites in the United States, added sensationalized
headlines, posted the stories to their sites, and then used the
“share” feature of Facebook to generate traffic to the stories.
When people clicked on their stories, Google paid them for
the ads placed on their pages [4].
6
Watching other people compete at video games, or eSports,
began with the Internet café culture in South Korea and
China and has now become a global phenomenon.
Professional eSports leagues are growing in popularity, and
companies throughout North America are transforming
movie theaters, parking garages, and other large spaces into
eSports arenas. Twitch is the most popular platform for live
streaming video games over the Internet. The most popularly
watched eSports event in 2022 was the League of Legends
World Championship, which attracted more than 5 million
viewers [5].
These stories illustrate how the Internet and cellular networks
are changing life in the modern world (Figure 3.1). The
development of these networks has provided us with exciting
new ways to conduct business, connect with friends, and
entertain ourselves. However, other fruits of the same
technologies are bitter: new ways of scamming people, new
ways to bully and harass others, and new concerns about the
impact of social media on democratic institutions.
Figure 3.1
Far more people in the world have access to cellphones than to electricity
or clean water.
(Charles Sturge/Alamy Stock Photo)
In this chapter we explore how people use and abuse the
Internet and cellular networks. We discuss how people
communicate with one another and how they organize and
find information. Some governments are threatened by the
way in which modern networks have supported these
activities; we detail various kinds of censorship and consider
appropriate limits to the freedom of expression. We also
discuss and evaluate new behaviors that have emerged with
the growth of these networks, such as sexting, cyberbullying,
and Internet addiction.
7
3.2 Spam
Over 4 billion people around the world use email, and every
day about 350 billion email messages are sent [6].
Unfortunately, a significant percentage of this traffic consists
of unsolicited bulk email, or spam.
Why is spam called spam? Brad Templeton, chairman of the
board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, traces the term
back to the SPAM sketch from The Final Rip Off by Monty
Python’s Flying Circus, in which a group of Vikings drown
out a café conversation by loudly and obnoxiously repeating
the word “spam” [7]. In a similar way, legitimate email
messages can get “drowned out” by spam.
3.2.1 The Spam Tsunami
The rise of spam corresponded with the transformation of the
Internet from a noncommercial academic and research
enterprise into a commercial global network. Early spam
messages provoked Internet users and generated big
headlines. For example, in 1994 Phoenix lawyers Laurence
Canter and Martha Siegel sent an email advertising their
immigration services to more than 9,000 electronic
newsgroups. Canter and Siegel received tens of thousands of
responses from outraged newsgroup users who did not
appreciate seeing an off-topic, commercial message. The New
York Times reported the incident with the tongue-in-cheek
headline, “An Ad (Gasp!) in Cyberspace.” Canter and Siegel
were undeterred. Their ad was successful in bringing them
new clients. “We will definitely advertise on the Web again,”
Canter said. “I’m sure other businesses will be advertising on
the network in the very near future” [8]. Still, spam was not
seen as much of a problem throughout the 1990s, and even in
the year 2002 it accounted for only about 9 percent of all
email traffic [9].
The spam tsunami hit in 2003, with a big jump in the volume
of spam messages, and by 2009 about 85 percent of all email
messages were spam [10]. Spam consumed a large percentage
of the Internet’s bandwidth and huge amounts of storage
space on mail servers and individual computers.
To deal with the deluge, an entire industry grew up
developing software designed to filter out spam. These filters
looked for a large number of messages coming from the same
email address, messages with suspicious subject lines, or
messages with spamlike content. ISPs and businesses installed
spam filters to keep spam from reaching users’ mailboxes.
Even with spam filters in place, the cost to businesses in
wasted productivity from the spam that got through was
estimated at tens of billions of dollars per year in the United
States alone [11].
The volume of spam grew so large because spam is effective.
The principal advantage of spam is its low cost compared to
other forms of advertising. For about $10, a company can
send an advertisement to a million different email addresses
[12]. Sending the same advertisement to a million addresses
using the US Postal Service costs at least $40,000 for the
mailing list and $280,000 for bulk-rate postage. And that
doesn’t include the cost of the brochures! In other words, an
email advertisement is more than 30,000 times cheaper than
a traditional flyer sent out in the mail.
Where do spammers get email lists with millions of
addresses? The Internet provides a variety of sources of email
addresses that can be harvested and sold to spammers. For
example, email addresses often appear in Web sites, in chatroom conversations, and newsgroups. Some computer viruses
gather email addresses stored in the address books of PCs
and transmit these addresses to spammers.
8
Another way to garner email addresses is through dictionary
attacks (also called directory harvest attacks). Spammers
bombard Internet service providers (ISPs) with millions of
emails containing made-up addresses, such as
AdamA@isprovider.com, AdamB@isprovider.com,
AdamC@isprovider.com, and so on. Of course, most of these
emails will bounce back, because the addresses are no good.
However, if an email doesn’t bounce, the spammer knows
there is a user with that email address and adds it to its
mailing list.
Sometimes people voluntarily reveal their email address.
Have you ever entered a contest on the Web? There is a good
chance the fine print on the entry form said you agree to
receive “occasional offers of products you might find
valuable” from the company’s marketing partners; in other
words, spam [13]. Sign-ups for email lists often contain this
fine print, too.
At the peak of the spam tsunami in 2009, about 90 percent
of spam was being sent out by botnets: huge networks of
compromised computers controlled by “bot herders.” Bot
herders create botnets by launching programs that search the
Internet for computers with inadequate security and install
software robot programs, called bots, on these vulnerable
systems. A computer with the bot program installed on it is
called a zombie because it can be directed by a remote
computer to perform certain tasks. Bot herders can send out
billions of email messages every day by dividing the address
lists among the hundreds of thousands of zombies they
control [14].
For more than a decade, law enforcement agencies and
Internet service providers around the world have engaged in a
sustained effort to shut down botnet command centers [15].
In addition, the behavior of spammers appears to have
changed after 2009, moving away from scattershot mailings
to somewhat more selective email lists [15]. For both these
reasons, the share of spam in email traffic peaked at around
85 percent in 2009 and has been trending downward ever
since [10]. In 2022 spam accounted for about 49 percent of
all email messages [16].
3.2.2 Need for Social–
Technical Solutions
As we saw in Chapter 1, new technologies sometimes cause
new social situations to emerge. The spam epidemic is an
example of this phenomenon. The Internet allows people to
send email messages for virtually no cost. Because a
spammer’s profits increase as the number of sent messages
increases, every spammer has an incentive to send as many
messages as possible.
The spam problem arose because the Internet and email
technology developed without taking social expectations into
account. The design of the Internet allows sophisticated users
to disguise their own email addresses. Spammers take
advantage of this loophole to send out millions of messages,
knowing that unhappy recipients will not be able to respond.
This is contrary to a fundamental social expectation: fairness.
In order to be fair, communications should be two-way, not
one-way [17].
3.2.3 Case Study: Anh the
Acme Accountant
Anh is an accountant at Acme Corporation, a medium-sized
firm with 50 employees. All the employees work in the same
building, and Anh knows all of them on a first-name basis. In
fact, Anh distributes paychecks to Acme’s employees at the
end of every month.
9
Anh's 10-year-old daughter is a Girl Scout. During the
annual Girl Scout cookie sale, Anh sent an email to all the
other Acme employees, inviting them to stop by her desk
during a break and place orders. (There is no company rule
prohibiting the use of the email system for personal emails.)
Nine of the recipients were happy to get Anh’s email, and
they ordered an average of four boxes of cookies, but the
other 40 recipients did not appreciate having to take the time
to read and delete an unwanted message; half of them
complained to a coworker about Anh’s action.
Did Anh do anything wrong?
Kantian Analysis
According to the second formulation of the Categorical
Imperative, we should always respect the autonomy of other
people, treating them as ends in themselves and never only as
the means to an end. The story provides evidence that Anh
was not simply “using” her coworkers as the means to her
end of making money for the Girl Scouts. She didn’t
misrepresent what she was doing. She didn’t force anyone to
buy the cookies or even read the entire email; employees not
interested in Girl Scout cookies could simply delete Anh’s
message as soon as they read the subject line. Some people
who received the email freely chose to buy some cookies.
Therefore, what Anh did wasn’t strictly wrong.
On the other hand, if Anh had found a way for those people
interested in hearing about the Girl Scout cookie drive to
“opt in” to her announcement, those people not interested in
purchasing Girl Scout cookies would not have been bothered
by her email. An “opt in” approach would have been better
because it would have shown more respect for the time of
Anh’s coworkers.
Act-Utilitarian Analysis
We will do our evaluation in terms of dollars and cents,
quantifying the benefits and costs of Anh’s action. Let’s begin
with the benefits. A box of cookies costs $4 and provides $3
of profit to the Girl Scouts. Someone who buys a box of Girl
Scout cookies understands it is a fund-raising activity and is
happy with what they receive for $4. Since the cost of $4 is
matched with $4 of benefit, they cancel each other out in our
analysis, and we do not have to worry about this factor
anymore. The average employee who participated in the sale
purchased four boxes of cookies. Nine employees
participated, which means Anh sold 36 boxes of cookies and
provided $108 of benefit to the Girl Scouts.
Now let’s look at the harms. The principal harm is going to
be the time wasted by Acme’s employees. Anh took orders
and made deliveries during coffee or lunch breaks, rather
than on company time, so our focus is on the 40 employees
who did not appreciate getting Anh’s solicitation. It’s
reasonable to assume that they spent an average of 15
seconds reading and deleting the message. That adds up to 10
minutes of lost productivity.
Half of the employees spent 5 minutes complaining about
what Anh did with a coworker. You can imagine the typical
conversation. “What makes her so special?” “How does she
get away with this kind of thing?” “If I did this for my kid,
I’d get in trouble.” Taking both the employee’s time and the
coworker’s time into account, Acme loses 10 minutes of
productivity for each conversation. Multiplying 10 minutes
by 20 conversations gives us 200 minutes.
0
The total time wasted equals 210 minutes or 3.5 hours.
Assume the average Acme employee makes $20 per hour.
The cost of the lost productivity is 3.5 hours times $20 per
hour or $70.
The benefit of $108 exceeds the cost of $70, so we may
conclude that Anh’s action was good. We should note,
however, that all the benefit went to the Girls Scouts and all
the cost was borne by Acme Corporation. It would be
perfectly reasonable if the owners of Acme Corporation
concluded that this kind of activity was not in the best
interests of the company and created a new policy forbidding
the use of company email for cookie drives and other fundraisers.
Rule-Utilitarian Analysis
What would the consequences be if everyone used the
company email system to solicit donations to their favorite
causes? All the employees would receive many more messages
unrelated to business. There would be plenty of grumbling
among employees, lowering morale. Reading and deleting
these solicitations would waste people’s time, a definite harm.
It’s unlikely that any one cause would do well if everyone
was trying to raise money for their own charity. There is a
good chance the owner would become aware of this problem,
and a logical response would be to ban employees from
sending out this kind of solicitation. Because the harms are
much greater than the benefits, it is wrong to use the
company email system to solicit donations to a charity.
Social-Contract-Theory Analysis
Acme Corporation does not have a prohibition against using
the company’s email system for personal business. You could
say that by sending out her email solicitation, Anh was
exercising her right to free speech. Of course, she did it in a
way that many people might find obnoxious, because even if
they did not choose to read her entire message, they had to
take the time to scan the subject line and delete it. Unlike
spammers, however, Anh did not disguise her identity as the
sender, thereby providing unhappy recipients with the
opportunity to respond to her email and voice their
disapproval of her solicitation. If many of the 40 people who
did not appreciate receiving her email sent a reply
communicating their displeasure, then Anh got a taste of her
own medicine by having to wade through a bunch of
unwanted email messages, and she may choose a better
method of advertising the Girl Scout cookie drive next year.
From a social-contract-theory point of view, Anh did nothing
wrong.
Virtue-Ethics Analysis
Good coworkers exhibit many virtues, including honesty,
dependability, fairness, friendliness, and respect for
coworkers. Three that seem particularly important for this
case study are honesty, fairness, and respect. Anh
demonstrated honesty by being completely straightforward
about the Girl Scout cookie drive with her fellow employees.
However, it wasn’t fair or respectful for Anh to use the email
system to promote her own daughter’s fund-raiser when
other employees have not used email for similar solicitations
for their children. Anh clearly exercised poor judgment when
she sent the email, since half of the company’s employees felt
the need to complain about it.
1
Looking at this scenario from a completely different angle,
we consider Anh in her role as a parent. Good parents want
what is best for their children, and Anh was undoubtedly
thinking of her daughter’s welfare when she decided to sell
the Girl Scout cookies at her workplace. Perhaps her
daughter has a quota to meet, or perhaps nice prizes are
given to those who sell enough cookies. Viewed in this light,
Anh’s actions seem consistent with those of a loving parent.
However, parents are also supposed to teach their children
how to develop into capable and independent adults. Anh
could have used the cookie sale as an opportunity to teach
her daughter some of those lessons. After all, her daughter is
10 years old, certainly old enough to handle many of the
tasks. Instead, Anh ran the entire cookie sale operation
herself and simply handed her daughter the proceeds.
We conclude Anh demonstrated many, but not all, of the
characteristics of a good coworker and a good parent in this
episode. If Anh wanted to help her 10-year-old daughter sell
cookies, fine, but she should have found a way for her
daughter to play a more active role in the cookie sale at Acme
Corporation. For example, her daughter could have come in
after school one day to deliver the cookies to the people who
ordered them and collect their payments. In this way, Anh’s
daughter could have gained the satisfaction of knowing she
had contributed a good portion of the time and effort needed
to achieve the desired result. Furthermore, Anh should have
found another way to advertise the sale that respected her
workplace’s culture of keeping the email system free from
solicitations.
Summary
Although the analyses of Anh’s action from the perspectives
of these five ethical theories reached different conclusions,
our analyses have shown she could have taken another course
of action that would have been much less controversial. Since
Anh has only 49 coworkers, it would not have been too
difficult for her to find out who wanted to be notified the
next time the Girl Scouts were selling cookies. She could have
put a sign-up sheet on her desk or the company bulletin
board, for example. By notifying only those people who
signed up, Anh’s emails would have been solicited and
personal. She could still take advantage of the efficiency of
the email system without anyone objecting that she was
“using” coworkers or contributing to lost productivity,
meaning there would be much less chance of the company
instituting a policy forbidding the use of its email system for
fund-raising activities. Finally, Anh could have found a way
to share the work with her daughter.
3.3 Internet
Interactions
The Internet mediates communications and commerce among
more than four billion people. In this section we review just a
few of the myriad ways people are using the Internet to
interact with others and gain access to information.
3.3.1 The World Wide Web
The creation of the World Wide Web stimulated a
tremendous growth in the popularity of the Internet. Its
creator, Tim Berners-Lee, initially proposed the Web as a
documentation system for CERN, the Swiss research center
for particle physics, but the creation of easy-to-use Web
browsers made the Web accessible to “ordinary” computer
users as well [18]. The Web is a hypertext system: a flexible
database of information that allows Web pages to be linked
to each other in arbitrary fashion.Web browsers such as
Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Firefox allow people to traverse
this hypertext system with ease.
2
Two attributes enabled the Web to become a global tool for
information exchange. First, it is decentralized. An individual
or organization can add new information to the Web without
asking for permission from a central authority. Second, every
object on the Web has a unique address. Any object can link
to any other object by referencing its address. A Web object’s
address is called a URL (uniform resource locator).
3.3.2 Mobile Apps
People are spending more time on smartphones and tablets
and less time on laptop or desktop computers. Using Web
browsers on mobile devices can be awkward, and for this
reason organizations produce mobile apps: software
programs that are loaded onto mobile devices. Some mobile
apps are stand-alone programs, but others connect to the
Internet, allowing people to download and upload data.
Mobile apps are a popular way to access the Internet because
they can be optimized to make the best use of a mobile
device’s resources (limited screen size, touch interface, etc.)
[19].
3.3.3 How We Use the
Internet
Intuitive Web browsers and mobile apps have made the
Internet accessible to people with little or no formal
computer training. Today billions of people access the
Internet for a wide variety of purposes. Here are just a few
examples of how people are using the Internet.
1. We buy.
Shopping sites enable us to view and order merchandise
from the comfort of our homes. According to the US
Census Bureau, ecommerce represented 15 percent of
all retail sales in the United States in the first quarter of
2023 [20].
2. We sell.
Craigslist allows people to place free classified
advertisements on the Internet. Begun by San
Franciscan Craig Newmark in 1999, Craigslist is now
available in about 90 countries and attracts about 50
billion page views a month [21].
3. We socialize.
The Internet has become a popular way for friends to
keep in touch with each other. The most popular social
network is Facebook, with 3 billion monthly active
users in January 2023 [22]. Another well-known social
network is LinkedIn, which serves people looking for
professional contacts.
In 2012 the Dutch airline KLM launched a program
that allows ticketed passengers who have uploaded
information from their Facebook or LinkedIn profiles
to select seatmates based on the profiles provided by
other passengers [23].
4. We contribute content.
Popular apps allow people to upload videos, photos,
podcasts, or other digital content. Instagram, with 2
billion monthly users, allows its users to upload photos
and videos and share them on social networking
services, such as Facebook.
3
A wiki is a Web site that allows multiple people to
contribute and edit its content. The most famous wiki is
Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. Relying on the
submissions of hundreds of thousands of volunteers,
Wikipedia has become by far the largest encyclopedia in
the world. Seventy-six languages are represented by at
least 100,000 articles, but by far the most popular
language is English, with more than 6.6 million articles
written as of 2023. However, critics wonder about the
quality of a reference work that allows anyone with a
Web browser to contribute [24].
5. We blog.
A blog (short for “Web log”) is a personal journal or
diary kept on the Web. Used as a verb, the word blog
means to maintain such a journal. Blogs may contain
plain text, images, audio clips, or video clips [25].
Some commentators use the term Web 2.0 to refer to a
change in the way people use the Web. Social
networking services, wikis, Flickr, Reddit, and blogs
illustrate that hundreds of millions of people are now
using the Web not simply to access content but to build
communities and upload and share content they have
created.
6. We visit secret Web sites.
A darknet is a network of Web sites that can only be
accessed through special software that encrypts
messages and provides users with anonymity. Darknets
are popular with those who have something to hide:
people who engage in pedophilia, sell illegal drugs,
traffic in illegal weapons, and the like. However,
Edward Snowden’s disclosure of surveillance by the
National Security Agency has prompted some people to
ponder whether everybody should be using darknets on
the principle that the government should not be spying
on law-abiding citizens [26].
7. We engage in crowdsourcing.
Crowdsourcing is an online method of getting goods or
services from a large group of people.
The Waze app is an example of information
crowdsourcing. People use Waze to find the quickest
way to drive from one place to another. If they allow
the app to run while they are driving, it sends their car’s
GPS coordinates to Waze, which computes vehicle
speeds and then uses this information about traffic
congestion to help other Waze users find the best route
[27].
Financing a project through crowdsourcing is called
crowdfunding. Kickstarter is an American corporation
that supports crowdfunding. Since 2009, more than 22
million people have pledged over $7 billion to
successfully fund more than 242,000 projects in a wide
variety of creative areas: music, film and video, games,
publishing, art, design, technology, theater, comics,
food, fashion, and more [28].
8. We learn.
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, schools and
universities shifted to online learning, and the
popularity of Zoom skyrocketed.
9. We explore our roots.
In the past, genealogists interested in accessing US
immigration and census records had the choice between
mailing in their requests and waiting for them to be
processed or visiting the National Archives and
examining the documents by hand. Now
FamilySearch.org offers free access to indexes to US
census information from 1790 to 1950, allowing
genealogical research to be performed remotely—and
much more quickly—over the Internet.
4
10. We enter virtual worlds.
An online game is a game played on a computer
network that supports the simultaneous participation of
multiple players. The Internet enables people to play
games with total strangers and makes it possible for
aficionados of obscure games to find opponents. The
most popular online games attract millions of players.
South Koreans have enjoyed eSports for decades.
Cybercafés (called PC bangs in South Korea) have
large-screen monitors enabling spectators to watch the
game-play, which is full of virtual violence and
mayhem. Some children spend up to 10 hours a day
playing games, hoping to turn professional. Kim Hyun
Soo, chairman of the Net Addiction Treatment Center,
complains that “young people are losing their ability to
relate to each other, except through games” [29]. We
discuss the topic of Internet addiction in Section 3.11.
The phenomenon of global online gaming has created a
real economy based on virtual worlds. In 2005 the New
York Times reported on Chinese “gold farmers” who
worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, earning $3,000
a year killing monsters, harvesting virtual gold coins
and artifacts, creating powerful avatars, and selling
them over the Internet [30]. More recently, many
citizens of Venezuela, trying to survive in a highly
inflationary economy, have turned to gold farming. A
Venezuelan gold farmer playing Runescape can earn
12,000 Venezuelan bolivares ($0.50) an hour, five times
the minimum wage [31].
11. We control the Internet of Things.
An increasing number of non-IT devices—thermostats,
appliances, lights, motion sensors, door locks, garagedoor openers, and baby monitors, to name just a few
examples—are being equipped with wireless
connections to the Internet, forming an Internet of
Things. These devices can be controlled from a Web
browser, allowing people to oversee them even when
they are not at home.
More significantly, some Internet-connected devices can
be programmed to interact with each other without
human intervention. Imagine devices at home that can
monitor the GPS coordinates of the owner's
smartphone. An individual could drive home after a
long, hot day at work. When they are 15 minutes away
from home, the air conditioning in their home turns on.
They turn onto their street, and their outdoor light
turns on. As they pull into their driveway, the garage
door opens automatically [32].
12. We pay our taxes.
About 94 percent of Americans' federal income tax
returns for tax year 2021 were filed online [33].
13. We gamble.
Internet gambling is a $94 billion-a-year global business
[34].
14. We take humanitarian action.
Kiva is a Web site supporting person-to-person
microlending. Kiva works with microfinance
institutions to identify entrepreneurs from communities
with relatively little wealth, and it posts information
about these entrepreneurs on its Web site. People who
wish to make an interest-free loan are able to identify
the particular person to whom they would like to lend
money. Lenders have the ability to communicate with
the entrepreneurs and see the impact their loans are
having on the recipients, their families, and their
communities [35].
5
3.4
Cryptocurrencies
3.4.1 Features of
Cryptocurrencies
The Internet has supported the development of
cryptocurrencies: virtual currencies independent of any bank
or government. Bitcoin, released in 2009, was the first
cryptocurrency. There are now more than 19,000
cryptocurrencies, and more than 40 of them had market
capitalizations of at least $1 billion in 2022, although Bitcoin
dominates the other cryptocurrencies. Its market
capitalization is nearly as large as that of all the other
cryptocurrencies put together [36].
The primary features of a cryptocurrency are:
Global Accessibility: Anyone with an Internet
connection can send and receive cryptocurrency.
Decentralization: All transactions are recorded in an
encrypted public ledger distributed across many
Internet-connected computers.
Anonymity: Cryptocurrency transactions are recorded
using a digital address rather than a personal identifier.
Security: To deter fraud and counterfeiting, transactions
and the creation of new currency are encrypted.
Limited Supply: The number of coins that can be
produced is limited, supporting the value of the
cryptocurrency.
3.4.2 Uses of
Cryptocurrencies
Cryptocurrencies offer a way for people to make anonymous
purchases, which makes cryptocurrencies a popular vehicle
for illegal transactions. Since cryptocurrencies are not
connected to bank accounts, they are more difficult for law
enforcement agencies to seize [37].
Cryptocurrencies are popular in Africa, Southeast Asia, and
Latin America as a way for overseas workers to transfer
funds back to their families [38]. Two countries have
recognized cryptocurrencies as legal tender: El Salvador in
2021 and the Central African Republic in 2022.
The most popular use of cryptocurrencies is as an investment
vehicle. Many people engage in speculation, purchasing
cryptocurrencies in the hope that their value will rise. Some
people see cryptocurrencies as a hedge against inflation.
3.4.3 Sustainability
Concerns
Cryptocurrencies are supported by decentralized networks of
computers. Because there is no central authority, the group of
computers must agree by consensus about all cryptocurrency
transactions. Distributed computers reach consensus using a
formal protocol.
The encrypted, distributed ledger of cryptocurrency
transactions is called a blockchain. Proof of work is a
consensus protocol used to add blocks to a blockchain. To
deter an attacker from creating a false blockchain, the proofof-work protocol requires a large amount of cryptographic
work to be performed to create a new block. Block miners
running hash algorithms on special-purpose computers
compete to generate the next block. When one block miner
discovers a valid hash, other miners in the network verify the
hash is correct. Discovering the hash takes a tremendous
computational effort; verifying the hash is correct is quick
[39]. The winning block miner is paid for their effort in the
virtual currency plus fees for the transactions in the new
block [40]. Bitcoin and most other cryptocurrencies rely upon
the proof-of-work protocol to maintain their blockchains.
6
In the case of Bitcoin, a new block is added to the blockchain
about once every 10 minutes. The amount of electricity used
to generate a new block is astonishing. A single Bitcoin
transaction has a carbon footprint equal to the carbon
footprint of more than 750,000 Visa credit-card transactions.
The annual electrical consumption associated with all Bitcoin
transactions is comparable to the electrical consumption of
the Netherlands [41]. As one of its efforts to save energy,
China took steps in 2021 to end cryptocurrency mining
within its borders [42].
The enormous carbon footprint of cryptocurrencies that rely
on the proof of work protocol has heightened interest in
another consensus protocol called proof of stake. Proof-ofstake protocols use validators instead of miners. By “staking”
some of its cryptocurrency as collateral, a validator gets a
chance to earn cryptocurrency by validating some new
transactions. The algorithm randomly selects validators based
on how much they have staked. The more a validator stakes,
the greater its chances of being selected. When a validator
validates a good transaction, it earns cryptocurrency. If a
validator validates a transaction that other validators
determine to be fraudulent, it may lose some of its collateral
as punishment [43, 44].
Compared to proof of work, proof of stake has the
advantage that it doesn’t require many computational
operations to validate a transaction, making it a more
environmentally responsible option. The reduced
computational requirements should enable cryptocurrencies
using the proof-of-stake protocol to handle far more
transactions per second than cryptocurrencies relying on the
proof-of-work protocol. The primary disadvantage of proof
of stake is that the protocol has not yet demonstrated it is as
secure from attacks as the proof-of-work protocol [43, 44].
In September 2022, Ethereum, the second largest
cryptocurrency by total market capitalization, switched from
proof-of-work mining to proof-of-stake mining, reducing its
electrical consumption by an estimated 99.8 percent [45].
3.4.4 Financial Concerns
A variety of financial concerns have been raised about Bitcoin
and other cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin is the dominant cryptocurrency, but only 3–7 Bitcoin
transactions per second can be performed worldwide. In
comparison, VisaNet can process more than 24,000 Visa
transactions per second [46]. There is no way Bitcoin will
ever replace credit cards for everyday transactions.
Cryptocurrency prices are volatile, making them a highly
speculative investment vehicle. For example, the price of one
Bitcoin was about $1,000 in April 2017, $65,000 in
November 2021, $16,000 in November 2022, and $70,000
in March 2024.
Many Nobel-prize-winning economists have declared Bitcoin
to be an economic bubble. Angus Deaton said, “The only
advantage as far as I can see is you can be a crook. You don’t
want to leave any record. It’s not an accident that people
who demand ransoms demand them in Bitcoin” [47].
7
Since the launch of Bitcoin in 2009, over 2,000 other
cryptocurrencies have failed. Many of these currencies were
outright frauds or scams. Others were based on poor business
plans [48]. If a cryptocurrency exchange goes bankrupt, no
government protects the cryptocurrency deposits. In
November 2022 the cryptocurrency exchange FTX Trading
filed for bankruptcy [49].
The proof-of-work protocol is not immune from
cyberattacks. If a hacker gains control of a majority of a
system’s hash rate in a so-called 51% attack, the hacker can
alter events and insert double transactions, allowing the same
digital coin to be spent more than once. The Digital Currency
Initiative at MIT has detected dozens of 51% attacks on
various cybercurrencies [50].
It is unclear how long governments will refrain from
regulating cryptocurrencies. China was the largest
cryptocurrency market, but in September 2021 the
government of China made all cryptocurrency transactions
illegal [51].
3.5 Text Messaging
Text messaging greatly increases the versatility of cell phones
as information-sharing platforms. Some of the most
impressive uses of text messaging are in countries where
people do not have easy access to the Internet, banks, and
other services taken for granted by those in countries with
more infrastructure.
3.5.1 Transforming Lives in
Areas with Limited
Infrastructure
Text- message-based services such as M-PESA in Kenya allow
people in areas with limited infrastructure to save money and
pay bills using their cell phones, bypassing traditional banks.
To pay a bill or transfer funds to a friend, the user simply
types a text message that the recipient is able to turn into
cash at any M-PESA office.
For the past decade, Kenya’s Agricultural Commodities
Exchange has partnered with Safaricom to provide
information about crop prices to farmers via a text-messaging
service. Another service, iCow, uses voice and text messaging
to help dairy farmers keep track of the gestation of their cows
[52].
Counterfeit medicine is a serious problem in many African
and Asian countries. Ghanian Bright Simons came up with
the idea of putting scratch cards with unique codes on
packages of medicine. After scratching the package to reveal
the code, a customer can text the code to a designated
number to learn if the drug is genuine [52].
3.5.2 Twitter
Twitter is a Web-based social networking service that allows
its users to send out text messages known as tweets. The
service is popular because people who want their friends to
know what they are doing find it more convenient to post a
single tweet than to type a bunch of text messages. Many
people also use Twitter as a blogging tool; they make their
tweets public so that anyone can read them. Other Twitter
members never post tweets, but they sign up to follow the
tweets posted by other people they are interested in.
8
More than 200 million people use Twitter regularly [53].
Users posted a record 580,166 tweets per minute during the
World Cup Final soccer match between Germany and Brazil
in 2014 [54].
3.5.3 Business Promotion
When carpenter Curtis Kimball started a part-time business
running a crème brûlée cart in San Francisco, he used Twitter
to let people know the cart’s location and the flavors of the
day. Before long, he had attracted 5,400 followers. Business
became so good he quit his day job in order to keep up with
demand. Many tiny businesses with no money for advertising
rely upon Twitter as their only marketing tool [55].
3.6 Political Impact
of Social Media and
Online Advertising
3.6.1 Political Activism
Text messaging played an important role in the ousting of the
president of the Philippines, Joseph Estrada, in 2001. During
his impeachment trial, his political allies in the Philippine
congress voted to keep some evidence against him from being
revealed. Filipinos who hoped to see President Estrada
convicted used text messaging to organize a demonstration
on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in Manila. Over the next
couple of days, millions more text messages were sent and
forwarded—many reading “Go 2 EDSA. Wear blk.”—and
the crowd rose to more than one million people. Intimidated
by the size of the protest, Estrada’s supporters in the
Philippine congress changed their votes and allowed the
incriminating evidence against President Estrada to be
released. Within hours, Estrada’s presidency was over [56].
Ten years later, Twitter and Facebook played a highly visible
role in the “Arab Spring” demonstrations that led to
revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, a civil war in Libya, and
protests in many other Arab countries. In the midst of the
protests in Cairo in 2011 that led to the resignation of
President Hosni Mubarak, one protester tweeted, “We use
Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and
YouTube to tell the world” [57]. Arab news organization Al
Jazeera created a “Twitter Dashboard” indicating the level of
tweeting activity in many Arab nations where there was
unrest [58].
Scholars of the Arab Spring uprisings point to an interesting
phenomenon: People started using online social networks
such as Twitter in order to keep up with their friends, but
these interactions caused them to become politicized.
Through these networks, bloggers met new people, became
exposed to new ideas, and developed an interest in human
rights [59].
Others think the role of social media in catalyzing social
change has been overblown. They argue that social networks
like Twitter and Facebook are great at building networks of
people with weak connections to each other, but high-risk
activism requires strong ties among the members of a
hierarchical organization [60].
9
The Arab Spring uprisings demonstrate how Twitter can
support grassroots activism. However, Twitter can also be
used by a single person or small organization to give the false
impression of grassroots support of a political candidate and
to trick the Google search engine into prominently featuring
misinformation. Here’s an early example of such an effort. In
2010 Massachusetts held a special election to fill its vacant
US Senate seat. Someone supporting the Republican
candidate created nine fake Twitter accounts and used them
to send 979 tweets to 573 users in about two hours. Each of
these tweets included the URL of a Web site containing
misinformation about the Democratic candidate. These
tweets were retweeted 143 times and reached 61,732 Twitter
users. Google’s real-time search engine detected the rapidly
growing interest in the URL and promoted the URL to the
top of its results page for the Democratic candidate. In other
words, for a period of time anyone who typed the name of
the Democratic candidate into the Google search engine
received as the top result the URL of the Web page
containing misinformation about that candidate [61].
Social media played a significant role in the protests
following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, on May 25, 2020. Police officers had arrested
Mr. Floyd for allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill in a
convenience store [62]. When 17-year-old bystander Darnella
Frazier saw police officers pinning Mr. Floyd to the ground
outside the store, she began filming the incident on her
smartphone [63]. The video clearly showed white police
officer Derek Chauvin choking Mr. Floyd, who was Black, by
putting his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck until Mr. Floyd was
dead. The heartbreaking video, posted to Facebook,
prompted Black Lives Matter protests across the United
States. Between 15 and 26 million Americans marched in
these protests, making it the largest protest movement in US
history [64]. All four Minneapolis police officers were fired.
Mr. Chauvin was convicted of murder and sentenced to 22.5
years in prison. The other three officers received prison
sentences of several years [62].
Social media played an important role in the events
surrounding the January 6, 2021, occupation of the US
Capitol by protesters objecting to the outcome of the 2020
US presidential election. The Republican candidate was
President Donald Trump, and the Democratic candidate was
Joe Biden. Early in the morning of November 4, while votes
were still being counted, President Trump tweeted that
Democrats were “trying to STEAL the Election” [65]. An
hour-and-a-half later, he called the election results fraudulent
[65]. Later that day, the first Stop the Steal group was formed
on Facebook. The group quickly grew to 320,000 followers
before Facebook deleted it [66]. Facebook ended up shutting
down hundreds of similar groups. Eventually, pro-Trump
supporters began shifting their activities to more permissive
social media sites, such as Parler and Gab. Those two sites
became the center of the movement to organize a protest on
January 6, 2021, the date Congress was scheduled to certify
the election results [66]. President Trump made several tweets
between late December and early January, encouraging
people to attend a protest in Washington, DC, on January 6
[66]. Right-wing groups used social media to communicate
plans regarding bringing weapons into Washington, DC, and
penetrating the Capitol Building [67]. At noon on January 6,
President Trump held a “Save America” rally during which
he called on his supporters to go to the Capitol [68].
Thousands of protesters marched to the Capitol. Between
2,000 and 2,500 people crossed the police line, entered the
Capitol, and disrupted the vote certification process for hours
[69]. Eventually, about 700 people were charged with federal
crimes for their participation in the riot. Ironically, FBI
agents used social media posts to identify many of the rioters,
and some rioters received harsher sentences because of selfincriminating evidence they had posted on social media [70].
0
3.6.2 Macedonian
Entrepreneurs
Among US corporations, Meta (which owns Facebook) and
Google are the two giants in online advertising revenue [71].
Facebook is popular among advertisers because it has a huge
user base and allows advertisers to target their ads to
categories of Facebook users based on various demographics,
such as age, income level, locale, religion, sexual orientation,
and political leanings.
Google’s digital advertising offerings include contextual
advertising, which places advertisements on Web pages if the
content of those pages is algorithmically determined to be
closely related to the advertisement. Through Google’s
AdSense program, people can make money from their Web
pages by allowing Google to place advertisements in them.
Google determines the advertisements that are displayed, and
the Web site owner receives a monthly check from Google
based on the number of people who clicked on the ads.
Both Meta and Google make money when people click on
links leading to pages containing advertising. “Nothing drives
clicks better than when the headline is exactly what people
want to hear or believe,” says Ian Schafer, founder of the
digital advertising agency Deep Focus [72]. Capitalists hoping
to share in the advertising revenue stream know this too.
As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, a group of
young Macedonians leveraged Facebook and Google to make
a lot of money for themselves in the run-up to the 2016 US
presidential election. At one point, more than 100 pro-Trump
Web sites were being managed from Veles, Macedonia. The
Macedonians registered their sites with Google’s AdSense
program, then made them attractive to visitors by copying
stories from conservative Web sites in the United States,
adding their own sensationalized headlines, and using
Facebook’s “share” feature to drive traffic to their pages.
When people clicked on their stories, Google paid them for
the ads placed on their pages. The most popular stories, such
as the false account that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald
Trump for president, were shared by hundreds of thousands
of Facebook users. Web site curators who got in on the
action early made up to $5,000 per month, a substantial sum
in Macedonia [4].
3.6.3 Internet Research
Agency
The Internet Research Agency (IRA), based in St. Petersburg,
Russia, employs hundreds of people who use social media to
exert political influence in other countries. In February 2018,
a grand jury for the District of Columbia returned a 37-page
indictment charging the IRA, two other Russian
organizations, and 13 Russian nationals (ten of them
employed by the IRA) with interfering in the US presidential
election of 2016, in violation of US law. According to the
indictment, the Russians set up social media accounts in the
United States using false US personas. Posing as Americans,
the Russians posted inflammatory material to social media
sites and organized rallies with the intent of helping the
campaign of Donald Trump and harming the campaign of
Hillary Clinton [73].
1
The grand jury indictment provided evidence that in addition
to the short-term goal of promoting Donald Trump and
undermining Hillary Clinton, the IRA’s long-term goal was
to increase political polarization in the United States.
According to the indictment, after Donald Trump was elected
president, IRA employees helped organize both pro-Trump
and anti-Trump rallies for the same day in New York City
[73].
About a year after the election, Facebook released an
estimate that the IRA published about 80,000 posts that
reached the news feeds of about 29 million American
Facebook users between 2015 and 2017. Another 97 million
Americans received the posts after other Facebook users
clicked “like” or “share” or commented on Russian-created
posts. About 10 million Americans saw advertisements
purchased by the IRA [74].
Since the election, many have asked whether the “fake news”
stories posted by the IRA were responsible for Donald
Trump’s victory. One study concluded that “fake news most
likely did have a substantial impact on the voting decisions of
a strategically important set of voters” [75], but another
study concluded that social media may have played only a
marginal role in influencing voters [76].
3.6.4 Is Democracy Being
Threatened?
Whether or not the Russian misinformation campaign
changed the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election, is
it possible that the widespread use of social media is
threatening the pillars of democratic societies by undermining
trust, “informed dialogue,” and “a shared sense of reality”
[77]? In its quest to maximize its revenue, Meta wants to
keeps its Facebook users engaged. That means feeding them
content they are interested in reading or viewing. To do this,
Facebook builds profiles of user preferences and then feeds
news stories and other data to users aligning with their
preferences. The result is the segregation of Facebook users
into ideological “echo chambers” [77].
Two- thirds of US adults read news stories on social media
sites, and Facebook is by far the most popular of them,
providing nearly half of US adults with at least some of their
news [78]. Facebook’s algorithms help ensure people will get
news stories that confirm their views, rather than expose
them to alternative narratives.
Nearly two decades ago, Cass Sunstein argued that
information technology could weaken democracy by allowing
people to filter out news that contradicts their view of the
world [79]. Today, Sunstein’s words seem prophetic.
However, in one crucial respect the environment is even more
insidious than what Sunstein described. Sunstein assumed
that people would be actively choosing to view Web sites or
watch cable channels that confirmed their opinions. In the
world moderated by Facebook, people aren’t actively making
the choices; instead, they are passively receiving the content
delivered to them by Facebook’s algorithms.
3.6.5 Troubling Times for
Traditional Newspapers
The rapid growth in advertising through social media and the
popularity of Craigslist have weakened the financial health of
traditional print newspapers. “Craigslist came up with a new
model for classified ads—free—with which newspapers could
not compete” [80]. Advertising revenues for print newspapers
dropped from $44.9 billion in 2003 to $16.4 billion in 2014
[81]. Although newspapers began selling digital
advertisements, their revenues of $3.5 billion in 2014 from
online ads did not come close to making up for the $28.5
billion decline in revenues from printed advertisements they
had experienced [81].
2
Newspapers that had been making lots of money in prior
decades began hemorrhaging cash in the twenty-first century.
Many went out of business, and many others lost most of
their value. In the 1990s the New York Times bought the
Boston Globe for $1.1 billion and the Worcester Telegram &
Gazette for $295 million. In 2013 the New York Times sold
both newspapers to Boston Red Sox owner John W. Henry
for $70 million, or 95 percent less than it had paid for them
[82]. Two Philadelphia newspapers lost about 90 percent of
their sales value between 2006 and 2012 [82].
The weakening of newspapers is likely to continue.
Newspapers continue to get about 20 percent of advertising
revenue, even though they account for only about 5 percent
of the time Americans spend on media. There is a good
chance advertisers will continue to shift their spending away
from print media to ads placed on mobile devices [83].
Are newspapers necessary to the healthy functioning of a
democracy? The Founding Fathers of the United States were
firm believers in the role newspapers could play in ensuring
an informed citizenry and holding the powerful to account.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[W]ere it left to me to decide
whether we should have a government without newspapers
or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a
moment to prefer the latter” [84]. The power of the press,
often called the Fourth Estate, was demonstrated repeatedly
in twentieth-century America. Here are three illustrative
examples. In the early 1900s investigative journalist Ida
Tarbell’s exposé of John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil
Company helped lead to the determination that Standard Oil
was violating antitrust laws and the subsequent breakup of
the company. In 1971 the New York Times published the
Pentagon Papers, revealing a wealth of information about the
conduct of the Vietnam War during the Kennedy and
Johnson administrations that had been kept secret from the
American public. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s
investigation of the White House’s involvement in the breakin of the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate
Hotel in 1972 led to the resignation of President Richard
Nixon in 1974.
To be fair, there is plenty of evidence that Americans’ interest
in newspapers was ebbing well before the creation of
Craigslist and the start of the online advertising revolution.
Newspaper circulation per capita has been steadily declining
since the late 1940s [85]. However, until the turn of the
century the best newspapers continued to make healthy
profits by introducing automation to make producing and
printing newspapers less labor-intensive, consolidating with
other newspapers (reducing competition), and steadily
increasing their advertising rates. What has proven to be a
much more difficult challenge for newspapers to overcome
has been devising a strategy to remain profitable in an
environment of steadily declining advertising revenues.
Are print newspapers facing extinction in the United States?
If so, can the Fourth Estate retain its vibrancy, power, and
independence without traditional newspapers?
3.7 Censorship
Censorship is the attempt to suppress or regulate public
access to material considered offensive or harmful.
Historically, most censorship has been exercised by
governments and religious institutions. For example, Roman
censors banished the poets Ovid and Juvenal for their
writings. During the Middle Ages the Inquisition suppressed
the publication of many books, including the work of Galileo
Galilei.
3
Censorship became a much more complicated issue with the
invention of the printing press. The printing press broke the
virtual monopoly held by governments and religious
institutions on distributing material to a large audience, and
the increase in printed material resulted in a greater number
of literate people. For the first time, private individuals could
broadcast their ideas to others on a wide scale.
In many countries, religious institutions continue to play a
significant role in determining what material should be
accessible to the public. In Western democracies, the gradual
separation of church and state has left the government as the
sole institution responsible for censorship.
3.7.1 Direct Censorship
Direct censorship has three forms: government
monopolization, prepublication review, and licensing and
registration.
The first form of direct censorship is government
monopolization. In the former Soviet Union, for example, the
government owned all the television stations, radio stations,
and newspapers. Private organizations could not even own a
photocopy machine. Government monopolization is an
effective way to suppress the flow of information. Modern
computer and communication technology makes government
monopolization much more difficult than in the past.
Prepublication review is the second form of direct censorship.
This form of censorship is essential for material the
government wishes to keep secret, such as information about
its nuclear weapons program. Most governments have laws
restricting the publication of information that would harm
national security. In addition, autocratic governments
typically block publication of material deemed injurious to
the reputations of their rulers.
The third form of direct censorship is licensing and
registration. This form of censorship is typically used to
control media with limited bandwidth. For example, only a
limited number of radio and television stations can be
accommodated on the electromagnetic spectrum. Hence a
radio or television station must obtain a license to broadcast
at a particular frequency. Licensing invites censorship. For
example, the US Federal Communications Commission has
banned the use of certain four-letter words. This led to a
challenge that went all the way to the US Supreme Court, as
we see in Section 3.8.3.
3.7.2 Self-Censorship
Perhaps the most common form of censorship is selfcensorship: a group deciding for itself not to publish material.
In some countries a publisher may censor itself in order to
avoid persecution. For example, after US-led forces toppled
the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, CNN’s chief
news executive, Eason Jordan, admitted that CNN had
suppressed negative information about the actions of the
Iraqi government for more than a decade in order to keep
CNN’s Baghdad bureau open and protect Iraqi employees of
CNN [86].
In other countries, publishers may want to maintain good
relations with government officials. Publications compete
with each other for access to information. Often this
information is available only from government sources.
Publishers know that if they offend the government, their
reporters may not be given access to as much information as
reporters for rival publications, putting them at a competitive
disadvantage. This knowledge can lead a “free” press to
censor itself.
4
Publishers have adopted ratings systems as a way of helping
people decide if they (or their children) should access
particular offerings. For example, television stations in the
United States broadcast shows with “mature content” late in
the evening. Voluntary ratings systems help people decide if
they (or their children) will see a movie, watch a television
show, or listen to a CD.
The Web does not have a universally accepted ratings system.
Some Web sites practice a form of labeling. For example, the
home page may warn the user that the site contains nudity
and require the user to click on an “I agree” button to enter
the site. However, other sites have no such warnings. People
who stumble onto these sites are immediately confronted
with images and text they may find offensive.
3.7.3 Challenges Posed by
the Internet
Five characteristics of the Internet make censorship more
difficult:
1. Unlike traditional one-to-many broadcast media, the
Internet supports many-to-many communications.
While it is relatively easy for a government to shut
down a newspaper or a radio station, it is more difficult
for a government to prevent an idea from being
published on the Internet, where millions of people
have the ability to post Web pages.
2. The Internet is dynamic.
Millions of new devices are being connected to the
Internet each year.
3. The Internet is huge.
There is simply no way a team of human censors can
keep track of everything that is posted on the Web.
While automated tools are available, they are fallible.
Hence any attempt to control access to material stored
on the Internet cannot be 100 percent effective.
4. The Internet is global.
National governments have limited authority to restrict
activities happening outside their borders.
5. It is hard to distinguish between children and adults on
the Internet.
How can an “adult” Web site verify the age of someone
attempting to enter the site?
3.7.4 Government Filtering
and Surveillance of Internet
Content
Despite the difficulties facing those who would seek to censor
Internet content, studies reveal that governments around the
globe are in fact limiting access to the Internet in a variety of
ways [87].
One approach is to make the Internet virtually inaccessible.
In North Korea, for example, only about 20,000 people have
access to the Internet, representing 0.1% of the population
[88].
In other countries, Internet access is easier but still carefully
controlled. For example, the Internet backbone in Saudi
Arabia is owned by the government, and all Internet traffic to
and from the rest of the world flows through two gateways,
which block pornography sites, gambling sites, and many
other pages deemed to be offensive to Islam or the
government of Saudi Arabia [89].
5
The Chinese government has blocked access to the Internet
during times of social unrest. For example, in July 2009,
China responded to ethnic riots in the autonomous region of
Xinjiang by turning off Internet service to the entire region
for 10 months [90, 91].
In addition, China has built one of the world’s most
sophisticated Web filtering systems [92]. The Great Firewall
of China prevents Chinese citizens from accessing certain
Internet content by blocking messages coming from
blocklisted sites, which include Google, YouTube, and
Facebook [93]. According to Freedom House, the Chinese
Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department employs
“hundreds of thousands or even millions of people to
monitor, censor, and manipulate online content” [93]. The
government shuts down Web sites and censors blogs that
criticize government policy, discuss politically sensitive
topics, or provide information that puts the government in a
bad light. Among the Web sites blocklisted by the
government include those containing pornography, those
associated with the Dalai Lama or the Falun Gong, those
referring to the 1989 military crackdown, and those run by
certain news organizations, such as Voice of America and
BBC News. Before the 2008 Summer Olympics, the
International Olympic Committee assured journalists that
they would have unfettered access to the Internet during their
stay in Beijing, but once the journalists arrived in Beijing,
they discovered that many sites were blocked. The
International Olympic Committee admitted that it had agreed
to allow the Chinese government to block sensitive sites “not
considered Games related” [94]. The Chinese government is
also trying to find ways to regulate access to virtual private
networks, which many Chinese people use to circumvent the
Great Firewall [93].
Meanwhile, Western nations have different standards about
what is acceptable and what is not. For example, Germany
forbids access to any neo-Nazi Web site, but Web surfers in
the United States can access many such sites.
Political satire and pornography are easily available through
American ISPs. Americans are used to political satire, but
many citizens are concerned about the corrupting influence of
pornography, particularly on minors. Since 1996 the US
Congress has passed three laws aimed at restricting children’s
access to sexually explicit material on the Web: the
Communications Decency Act, the Child Online Protection
Act, and the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The first two
laws were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court;
the third was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2003.
3.7.5 Ethical Perspectives
on Censorship
It is interesting that Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill,
who had quite different ethical theories, had similar views
regarding censorship.
Kant’s Views on Censorship
As a thinker in the tradition of the Enlightenment, Kant’s
motto was, “Have courage to use your own reason” [95].
Kant asks the rhetorical question, “Why don’t people think
for themselves?” and answers it: “Laziness and cowardice are
the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature
has long since discharged them from external direction,
nevertheless remain under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so
easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so
easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for
me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who
decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I
need not think, if I can only pay—others will readily
undertake the irksome work for me” [95, p. 85].
6
The Enlightenment was a reaction to the institutional control
over thought held by the aristocracy and the Church. Kant
believed he was living in a time in which the obstacles
preventing people from exercising their own reason were
being removed. He opposed censorship as a backward step.
Mill’s Views on Censorship
John Stuart Mill also championed freedom of expression. He
gave four reasons why freedom of opinion, and freedom of
expression of opinion, were necessary.
First, none of us is infallible. All of us are capable of error. If
we prevent someone from voicing their opinion, we may
actually be silencing the voice of truth.
Second, while the opinion expressed by someone may be
erroneous, it may yet contain a kernel of truth. In general, the
majority opinion is not the whole truth. We ought to let all
opinions be voiced so that all parts of the truth are heard.
Third, even if the majority opinion should happen to be the
whole truth, it is in the clash of ideas that this truth is
rationally tested and validated. The whole truth left untested
is simply a prejudice.
Fourth, an opinion that has been tested in the fire of a free
and open discourse is more likely to have a “vital effect on
the character and conduct” [96, p. 61].
Therefore, Mill, like Kant, fundamentally supported the free
exchange of ideas, with the conviction that good ideas would
prevail over bad ones. Applying their philosophy to the
World Wide Web, it seems they would support the free
exchange of opinions and oppose any kind of government
censorship of opinions.
Mill’s Principle of Harm
However, a lack of government censorship can also lead to
harm. Under what circumstances should the government
intervene? Mill proposed the principle of harm as a way of
deciding when an institution should intervene in the conduct
of an individual.
Principle of Harm
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is
not a sufficient warrant [96, p. 12].
In other words, the government should not get involved in
the private activities of individuals, even if the individuals are
doing something to harm themselves. Only if individuals’
activities are harming other people should the government
step in.
The principle of harm can be used to explain the position of
most Western democratic governments with respect to
censoring pornographic material depicting adults. Some
ethicists conclude it is not wrong for adults to view
pornography depicting adults. Others hold that this activity is
immoral. If the activity is immoral, it is more certain the
harm is being done to the individual consumer; less certain is
how much harm is being done to other people. Hence the
principle of harm can be used as an argument why the
government should not be trying to prevent adults from using
pornography depicting adults.
7
3.8 Freedom of
Expression
In the United States, freedom of expression is one of the most
cherished—and most controversial—rights. In this section we
explain the history behind the adoption of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. We also
explore why the freedom of expression has not been treated
as an absolute right.
3.8.1 History
At the time of the American Revolution, any criticism of
government was seen as a threat to public order and could
result in fines and/or imprisonment. Restrictions on freedom
of speech in England date back to 1275 and a law called De
Scandalis Magnatum. According to this law, a person could
be imprisoned for spreading stories about the King that could
have the effect of weakening the loyalty of his subjects. The
scope of the law became much broader through numerous
revisions over the next two centuries. Eventually, it
encompassed seditious words and words spoken against a
wide variety of government officials, including justices [97].
De Scandalis Magnatum was administered by the Court of
Star Chamber, or “Star Chamber” for short. The Star
Chamber reported directly to the King, and it did not have to
obey traditional rules of evidence. Rulings of the Star
Chamber demonstrated that a person could be convicted for
making a verbal insult or for something written in a private
letter. The Star Chamber was abolished in 1641, but the law
continued to be enforced through Common Law courts [97].
At the end of the eighteenth century, freedom of the press in
England and its colonies meant freedom to print without a
license. In other words, there were no prior restraints on
publication. People could publish what they pleased.
However, those who published material found to be seditious
or libelous would face severe consequences [97].
The law against libel simply considered if the material printed
was harmful; arguing that the information was true was not
relevant to the proceedings and could not be used in a
publisher’s defense. Between 1760 and the end of the
American Revolution, about 50 people were successfully
prosecuted for libel. To prevent such prosecutions from
continuing, most states adopted bills of rights after gaining
independence from England [97].
In May 1787, delegates from the thirteen states gathered in
Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. Soon
they were drafting a completely new Constitution. Delegate
George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights,
strongly opposed the proposed Constitution because it
contained no declaration of the rights of the citizens. Patrick
Henry and other political leaders shared Mason’s objections
[97].
While the proposed Constitution was ratified by all thirteen
states, most state legislatures adopted the Constitution with
the expectation that Congress would offer amendments
addressing the human-rights concerns brought up by the
opponents of the Constitution. During the first Congress,
James Madison proposed 12 such amendments. All 12 of
these amendments were sent to the states for ratification. Of
these 12 amendments, 10 were quickly ratified. Today these
10 amendments are commonly known as the Bill of Rights.
The first of these amendments, the one Madison considered
most essential, was the one guaranteeing freedom of speech
and freedom of the press [97].
128
First Amendment to the
United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
3.8.2 Freedom of
Expression Not an Absolute
Right
The primary purpose of the First Amendment’s free speech
guarantee is political. Free speech allows an open discussion
of public issues. It helps make government responsive to the
will of the people [98].
However, the First-Amendment right to free expression is not
limited to political speech. Nonpolitical speech is also
covered. There are good reasons for protecting nonpolitical
as well as political speech. First, it is sometimes hard to draw
the line between the two. Asking a judge to make the
distinction turns it into a political decision. Second, society
can benefit from nonpolitical as well as political speech.
Hence the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment also
promotes scientific and artistic expression. For the same
reason, the definition of “speech” encompasses more than
words. Protected “speech” includes art and certain kinds of
conduct, such as burning a US flag [99].
Decisions by the US Supreme Court have made clear that
freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Those who
abuse this freedom and harm the public may be punished.
For example, protection is not given to “libel, reckless or
calculated lies, slander, misrepresentation, perjury, false
advertising, obscenity and profanity, solicitation of crime,
and personal abuse or ‘fighting’ words,” because these
actions do not serve the ends of the First Amendment [98].
Various restrictions on freedom of speech are justified
because of the greater public good that results. For example,
US law prohibits cigarette advertising on television because
cigarette smoking has detrimental effects on public health.
Some cities use zoning laws to concentrate adult bookstores
in a single part of town because the presence of adult
bookstores lowers property values and increases crime.
3.8.3 FCC v. Pacifica
Foundation
To illustrate limits to First Amendment protections, we
consider the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation
et al.
9
In 1973 George Carlin recorded a performance made in front
of a live audience in California. One track on the resulting
record is a 12-minute monologue called “Filthy Words.” In
the monologue Carlin lists seven words that “you couldn’t
say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely
wouldn’t say, ever” [100]. The audience laughs as Carlin
spends the rest of the monologue creating colloquialisms
from the list of banned words.
On the afternoon of October 30, 1973, counterculture radio
station WBAI in New York aired “Filthy Words” after
warning listeners the monologue contained “sensitive
language which might be regarded as offensive to some”
[101]. A few weeks after the broadcast, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) received a complaint
from a man who had heard the broadcast on his car radio in
the presence of his son. In response to this complaint, the
FCC issued a declaratory order and informed Pacifica
Foundation (the operator of WBAI) that the order would be
placed in the station’s license file. The FCC warned Pacifica
Foundation that further complaints could lead to sanctions.
Pacifica sued the FCC, and the resulting legal battle reached
the US Supreme Court. In 1978 the Supreme Court ruled, in
a 5–4 decision, that the FCC did not violate the First
Amendment [101]. The majority opinion states, “Of all
forms of communication, it is broadcasting that has received
the most limited First Amendment protection.” There are two
reasons why broadcasters have less protection than
booksellers or theater owners:
1. “Broadcast media have a uniquely pervasive presence
in the lives of all Americans.” [101]
Offensive, indecent material is broadcast into the
privacy of citizens’ homes. Since people can change
stations or turn their radios on or off at any time, prior
warnings cannot completely protect people from being
exposed to offensive material. While someone may turn
off the radio after hearing something indecent, that does
not undo a harm that has already occurred.
2. “Broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even
those too young to read.” [101]
In contrast, restricting children’s access to offensive or
indecent material is possible in bookstores and movie
theaters.
The majority emphasized that its ruling was a narrow one
and that the context of the broadcast was all-important. The
time of day at which the broadcast occurred (2 p.m.) was an
important consideration, because that affected the
composition of the listening audience.
3.8.4 Case Study: Leah’s
Blog
Leah is a journalism major who maintains a popular blog
focusing on campus life. Leah attends a private birthday
party in someone’s apartment for her friend Jamal, a college
student active in the Whig Party on campus. Someone gives
Jamal a Tory Party T-shirt as a gag gift, and Jamal puts it on.
Leah uses her cell phone to get a picture of Jamal wearing the
T-shirt when he is looking the other way. Jamal gives Leah a
ride home after the party, but she does not tell him about the
photo. When she is back in her apartment, she posts the
photo on her blog. In the blog she identifies Jamal and
explains the context in which the photo was taken.
The story is read by many people both on and off campus.
The next day Jamal confronts Leah, yells at her for posting
the photo, and demands that she remove it from her Web
site. Leah complies with Jamal’s request by removing the
photo, and the two of them remain friends. As a result of the
incident, Jamal becomes more popular on campus, and the
number of people who read Leah’s blog increases.
0
Was it wrong for Leah to post the picture of Jamal on her
blog without first getting his permission?
Kantian Analysis
By uploading Jamal’s photo to her blog without first asking
his permission, Leah didn’t respect Jamal’s autonomy.
Instead, she treated him as a means to her end of increasing
the readership of her blog. Therefore, her action was wrong
according to the second formulation of the Categorical
Imperative.
Social-Contract-Theory Analysis
The birthday party was held in the apartment of one of
Jamal’s friends. In this private setting and among friends,
Jamal had a legitimate expectation that what happened
during the party would not be broadcast to the world. By
secretly taking a photo of Jamal doing something out of
character and posting that photo on her blog, Leah violated
Jamal’s right to privacy. For this reason Leah’s action was
wrong.
Act-Utilitarian Analysis
We need to determine the positive and negative consequences
of Leah’s action on the two people involved. Leah increased
the popularity of her blog, which is precisely the positive
outcome she wanted
. Jamal’s anger at Leah shows that
he was hurt and upset by what she did, but after he
confronted her, she removed the photo from her Web site
and they reconciled. Therefore, while the intensity of this
negative consequence to Jamal was significant, its duration
was brief
. As a result of the posting, Jamal became more
popular on campus, a very good thing for someone active in
campus politics
. Jamal had Leah to thank for this
boost in his popularity, further quenching the unhappiness he
initially felt when he learned what she had done
. We
conclude that the short-term consequences for both Leah and
Jamal were positive (totaling
).
The long-term consequences are difficult to determine. It is
possible that the photo could land in the wrong hands and be
used to discredit Jamal someday in the future
, but this
would depend on many factors. Jamal is currently politically
active. Is he going to stay active in Whig politics after he
graduates from college (50 percent)? The photo was only on
the Web for a day. Did anyone download it (20 percent)? If
so, what is the chance that someday the photo will fall into
the hands of someone who wants to make Jamal look bad
(10 percent)?
An important part of a utilitarian analysis is looking at the
certainty of each consequence: in other words, the probability
that it will happen. The short-term consequences of Leah’s
action are certainly positive for both Leah and Jamal
. The long-term negative consequences, if
any, are not certain at all
.
Adding the calculated short-term benefits
calculated long-term harms
to the
yields a total benefit of 16,
and we conclude her action had a good outcome.
1
Rule-Utilitarian Analysis
Let’s consider what would happen if everyone were
constantly taking photos of everyone they bumped into and
posting them on the Web. There would be some positive
consequences. It would be easier for people to see what their
friends were up to. People might be more reluctant to engage
in illegal activities if they thought photo or video evidence
might appear on the Web. There would also be a variety of
negative consequences. Once people started to feel as if they
were always being photographed, they would become selfconscious, making it more difficult for them to simply be
themselves. People would be less free to take off their public
persona and express their true feelings. Inevitably, people
would post photos that caused hard feelings and led to
strained relationships. Ultimately, the negative consequences
seem to be more weighty than the positive consequences, and
we conclude Leah’s action was wrong.
Virtue-Ethics Analysis
Leah and Jamal are friends. Aristotle recognized that people
are social beings and that friendship plays an important role
in eudaimonia, or human flourishing. True friends trust each
other and seek each other’s good. Reciprocity and an equality
of interest are fundamental elements of friendship. There was
no reciprocity when Leah sneakily took Jamal’s photo
without his knowledge; she exploited him by taking
something from him without giving him anything in return.
She did not act as a friend when she put her own interest
above that of Jamal. After the party, Leah had another
opportunity to be honest with Jamal. Unfortunately, she did
not trust Jamal enough to admit she had taken the picture
and ask his permission before posting the photo. Instead, she
said nothing to Jamal and simply posted the photo to her
blog. Overall, Leah’s actions at several points in the story do
not seem to be characteristic of a good friend.
Summary
The analyses from the perspectives of Kantianism, social
contract theory, rule utilitarianism, and virtue ethics do not
support Leah posting the photo without asking Jamal’s
permission, though each analysis uses a different line of
reasoning to reach that conclusion. Leah imagined (correctly,
as it turns out) that Jamal would be angry if she took a photo
of him wearing the Tory Party T-shirt, and that is why she
took the photo when he wasn’t looking. Leah figured it
would be better to beg for forgiveness than ask for
permission, but what she did was cut Jamal out of a decision
that affected both of them. This is no way to treat anybody,
much less a friend. Leah would have been better off trying to
persuade Jamal that putting the photo on her blog would be
to their mutual advantage, posting the image only after
obtaining his consent.
3.9 Children and
Inappropriate
Content
Many parents and guardians believe they ought to protect
their children from exposure to pornographic and violent
materials. A few years ago the center of concern was the
Web, and a large software industry sprang up to provide
browsers with the ability to block inappropriate images. Now
smartphones are ubiquitous, and some caregivers are being
forced to confront the unpleasant reality that children have
texted unclothed or sexually explicit images of themselves to
friends or even strangers.
2
3.9.1 Web Filters
A Web filter is a piece of software that prevents certain Web
pages from being displayed by your browser. While you are
running your browser, the filter runs as a background
process, checking every page your browser attempts to load.
If the filter determines that the page is objectionable, it
prevents the browser from displaying it.
Filters can be installed on individual computers, or an ISP
may provide filtering services for its customers. Programs
designed to be installed on individual computers, such as
CyberSentinel and Spector Pro, can be set up to email
caregivers as soon as they detect an inappropriate Web page
[102].
Typical filters use two different methods to determine if a
page should be blocked. The first method is to check the URL
of the page against a blocklist of objectionable sites. If the
Web page comes from a blocklisted site, it is not displayed.
The second method is to look for combinations of letters or
words that may indicate a site has objectionable content.
Neither of these methods is foolproof. The Web contains
millions of pages containing pornography, and new sites
continue to be created at a high rate, so any blocklist of
pornographic sites will be incomplete by definition. Some
filters sponsored by conservative groups have blocklisted sites
associated with liberal political causes, such as those
sponsored by the National Organization for Women and
LGBTQIA+ groups. The algorithms used to identify
objectionable words and phrases can cause Web filters to
block out legitimate Web pages.
3.9.2 Child Internet
Protection Act
In March 2003, the Supreme Court weighed testimony in the
case of United States v. American Library Association. The
question: Can the government require libraries to install
antipornography filters in return for receiving federal funds
for Internet access?
More than 14 million people access the Internet through
public library computers. About one-sixth of the libraries in
the United States have already installed filtering software on
at least some of their computers. The Child Internet
Protection Act requires that libraries receiving federal funds
to provide Internet access to its patrons must prevent children
from getting access to visual depictions of obscenity and child
pornography. The law allows adults who desire access to a
blocked page to ask a librarian to remove the filter.
In his testimony before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General
Theodore Olson argued that since libraries don’t offer
patrons X-rated magazines or movies, they should not be
obliged to give them access to pornography over the Internet.
Paul Smith, representing the American Library Association
and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that in their
attempt to screen out pornography, filters block tens of
thousands of inoffensive pages. He added that requiring
adults to leave the workstation, find a librarian, and ask for
the filter to be turned off would be disruptive to their
research and would stigmatize them.
3
In June 2003, the US Supreme Court upheld CIPA, ruling 6–3
that antipornography filters do not violate First-Amendment
guarantees [103]. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “A
public library does not acquire Internet terminals in order to
create a public forum for Web publishers to express
themselves, any more than it collects books in order to
provide a public forum for the authors of books to speak . . .
Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print
collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion”
[104].
3.9.3 Ethical Evaluations of
CIPA
In this section we evaluate CIPA from the perspectives of
Kantianism, act utilitarianism, and social contract theory.
Kantian Evaluation
We have already covered Kant’s philosophical position
against censorship. He believed that allowing people to use
their own reason would lead to society’s gradual
enlightenment. In this case, however, the focus is narrower.
Rather than talking about censorship in general, let’s look at
CIPA in particular.
The goal of CIPA is to protect children from the harm caused
by exposure to pornography. The way the goal is being
implemented is through Web filters. Studies have
demonstrated that Web filters do not block all pornographic
material but do block some nonpornographic Web pages.
Some nonpornographic information posted on the Web is not
easily accessible at libraries implementing governmentmandated Web filters. The people posting this information
did not consent to their ideas being blocked. Hence the
decision to require the use of Web filters treats the creators of
nonoffensive but blocked Web pages solely as means to the
end of restricting children’s access to pornographic materials.
This analysis leads us to conclude that CIPA is wrong.
Act-Utilitarian Evaluation
Our second evaluation of CIPA is from an act-utilitarian
point of view. What are the consequences of passing CIPA?
1. While not all children access the Web in public
libraries, and while Web filtering software is imperfect,
it is probable that enacting CIPA results in fewer
children being exposed to pornography, which is good.
2. Because Web filters are imperfect, people are unable to
access some legitimate Web sites. As a result, Web
browsers in libraries are less useful as research tools, a
harmful consequence.
3. Adult patrons who ask for filters to be removed may be
stigmatized (rightly or not) as people who want to view
pornography, a harm to them.
4. Some blocked sites may be associated with minority
political views, reducing freedom of thought and
expression, which is harmful.
Whenever we perform the utilitarian calculus and find some
benefits and some harms, we must decide how to weigh
them. This is a good time to think about utilitarian
philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s seven attributes. In particular,
how many people are in each affected group? What is the
probability the good or bad event will actually happen? How
soon is the event likely to occur? How intense will the
experience be? To what extent is the pain not diluted by
pleasure or vice versa? How long will it last? How likely is
the experience to lead to a similar experience? Actually
performing the calculus for CIPA is up to each person’s
judgment. Different people could reach opposite conclusions
about whether enacting CIPA is the right thing for the US
government to do.
4
Social-Contract-Theory Evaluation
In social contract theory, morally binding rules are those
rules mutually agreed to in order to allow social living [105].
Freedom of thought and expression is prized. According to
John Rawls, “liberty of conscience is to be limited only when
there is a reasonable expectation that not doing so will
damage the public order which the government should
maintain” [106].
It would be difficult to gain consensus around the idea that
the private viewing of pornography makes social living no
longer possible. For this reason, the private use of
pornography is considered to be outside the social contract
and nobody else’s business. However, when we think about
the availability of pornography in public libraries, the issue
gets thornier.
Some argue that allowing people to view pornography in a
public place demeans women, denying them dignity as equal
persons [107]. On the other hand, we know that filtering
software is imperfect. In the past, it has been used to promote
a conservative political agenda by blocking sites associated
with other viewpoints [108, 109]. Hence it reduces the free
exchange of ideas, limiting the freedoms of thought and
expression. For some adults, public libraries represent their
only opportunity to access the Web at no cost. In order to be
treated as free and equal citizens, they should have the same
Web access as people who have Internet access from their
homes. If Web filters are in place, their access is not equal
because they must ask for permission to have the filters
disabled. Finally, while most people would agree that
children should not be exposed to pornographic material, it
would be harder to convince reasonable people that social
living would no longer be possible if children happened to see
pornography in a library.
Our analysis from the point of view of social contract theory
has produced arguments both supporting and opposing the
Children’s Internet Protection Act. However, installing filters
does not seem to be necessary to preserve the public order.
For this reason, the issue is outside the social contract and
freedom of conscience should be given precedence.
3.9.4 Sexting
Sexting refers to sending sexually suggestive text messages or
emails containing nude or nearly nude photographs [110].
Sexting has drawn a lot of media attention, but early reports
on this phenomenon may have overstated the rates at which
teenagers are sexting. More recent surveys indicate that
between 3 and 7 percent of teens are sexting, and only 1
percent of teens have actually sent photos showing intimate
areas of their bodies [111].
Whatever its frequency, sexting has had a serious impact on
some people’s lives. Here are three incidents.
5
Ohio high-school student Jesse Logan sent nude pictures of
herself to her boyfriend. When they broke up, the exboyfriend distributed the photos to other girls in her high
school. Jesse endured months of harassment from her highschool classmates and began skipping classes on a daily basis.
After attending the funeral of another classmate who died by
suicide, Jesse went home and ended her own life [112].
Ting- Yi Oei, a 59-year-old assistant principal at Freedom
High School in South Riding, Virgina, was asked to
investigate rumors that students were distributing nude
photographs on their cell phones. His investigation led to a
16-year-old boy, who had a photo of a 17-year-old girl on his
phone. In the photo, the girl was posing in her panties, with
her arms mostly covering her breasts. Oei showed the image
to the principal, who told him to keep a copy on his
computer as evidence. Two weeks later the same boy got in
trouble again, and Oei suspended him for two weeks. When
Oei met with the boy’s mother, he told her about the earlier
photo incident. The boy’s mother was upset that Oei hadn’t
immediately told her about the photo, and she demanded
that Oei revoke her son’s suspension. When Oei refused, the
mother went to the police and told them about the photo.
Sheriff’s investigators came to the school and found the
photo of the girl on Oei’s computer. County prosecutor
James Plowman gave Oei an ultimatum: resign or face felony
charges for possession of child pornography. Plowman’s
assistant told the press, “We just feel very strongly that this is
not someone who should be in the Loudoun County school
system.” Oei refused to resign, and in August 2008, a grand
jury indicted him for possession of child pornography. The
school district removed him from his position as vice
principal and reassigned him to a job at a testing center. Oei
had to take out a second mortgage on his house to pay legal
expenses. In April 2009, Loudoun Circuit Court Judge
Thomas Horne dismissed the charges, noting that nudity
alone is not sufficient to categorize an image of a minor as
child pornography. Though never convicted, Oei ended up
deeply in debt and with a tarnished reputation, unsure if he
would ever return to his former position at the high school
[113].
After Phillip Alpert got into an argument with his 16-year-old
girlfriend, he emailed a nude photo of her to dozens of her
friends and family members. The Orlando, Florida, police
arrested Alpert, who had just turned 18, charging him with
sending child pornography, a felony. Alpert was sentenced to
five years’ probation and required to register with the state of
Florida as a sex offender. He will remain a registered sex
offender until he is 43 years old [114].
There appears to be a widespread sentiment that child
pornography laws should not be used to prosecute teenagers
who are caught sexting. As of August 2022, 13 states in the
United States had passed laws allowing minors who sext to
be diverted outside the formal justice system [115].
3.10 Breaking Trust
Some people use the Internet for purposes of identity theft or
sexual assault. Companies and individuals have used fake
online reviews to drum up business. Many people have been
humiliated by the widespread dissemination of photos or
videos they expected to be kept private.
6
3.10.1 Identity Theft
Dorothy Denning defines identity theft as “the misuse of
another person’s identity, such as name, Social Security
number, driver’s license, credit card numbers, and bank
account numbers. The objective is to take actions permitted
to the owner of the identity, such as withdraw funds, transfer
money, charge purchases, get access to information, or issue
documents and letters under the victim’s identity” [116].
By far the leading form of identity theft in the United States
involves the fraudulent use of an existing credit card account
or bank account. In 2017 about 7 percent of adults in the
United States reported being the victims of identity fraud
[117]. Fortunately, US law says that a consumer’s liability for
losses due to credit card fraud are limited to $50 if reported
promptly. Most victims end up paying nothing out of pocket
because their banks and credit card companies offer zeroliability fraud protection.
Point- of-sale fraud has declined rapidly with the adoption of
EMV (embedded chip) credit cards and terminals. Identify
fraud is increasingly happening online, where it is more
difficult for merchants to verify that transactions are being
authorized by the rightful cardholders because the
cardholders cannot present their cards for inspection. Socalled “card-not-present fraud” is now 81 percent more likely
than point-of-sale fraud [117].
Identity thieves are much more likely to use low-tech
methods rather than sophisticated online attacks to gain
access to the account information they need. A 2008 survey
of identity theft victims revealed that in 43 percent of the
cases, the theft was the result of a lost or stolen wallet, credit
card, checkbook, or another physical document [118]. Some
identity thieves engage in dumpster diving— looking for
personal information in garbage cans or recycling bins. Old
bills, bank statements, and credit card statements contain a
wealth of personal information, including names, addresses,
and account numbers. Another simple way to get information
is through shoulder surfing—looking over the shoulders of
people filling out forms.
Gathering financial information via spam is called phishing
(pronounced “fishing”). Thieves send out spam messages
designed to look as if they originated from PayPal, eBay, or
another well-known Internet-active business. Through these
messages they hope to con unsuspecting recipients into
connecting with authentic-looking Web sites and revealing
their credit card numbers or other personal information. For
example, a victim might receive an email message
purportedly from PayPal, asking the person to go to the
PayPal Web site to confirm a transaction. The email message
contains a hypertext link. When the person clicks on the link,
they are connected to the counterfeit PayPal site.
College students are five times more likely to be victims of
identity theft than average adults, for a variety of reasons.
They use a lot of digital devices, and many do not secure
them properly with strong passwords. They tend to post a lot
of personal information on social media sites. College
students are particularly vulnerable to low-tech methods of
identity theft. A high percentage of them live in close quarters
with others, and some do not take care to secure sensitive
information. Dorm rooms are often left wide open, with
checkbooks and financial documents kept in unlocked desk
drawers. Students may throw documents containing personal
financial information into the trash, where they can be
retrieved by dumpster divers [119].
The Identity Theft and Assumption Act of 1998 makes
identity theft a federal crime. In 2004 Congress passed the
Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, which lengthened
prison sentences for identity thieves [120]. A variety of lawenforcement agencies investigate alleged violations of this
law: the US Secret Service, the FBI, the US Postal Inspection
Service, and the Office of the Inspector General of the Social
Security Administration.
7
3.10.2 Fake Reviews
A 2014 survey of North Americans by BrightLocal revealed
that 88 percent had used online reviews in the past 12
months to gauge the quality of a local business, and 39
percent read reviews regularly. Restaurants, hotels, doctors
and dentists, and beauty salons were the business types most
frequently searched by consumers [121].
About three-quarters of consumers (72 percent) told
surveyers that “positive reviews make them trust a local
business more” [121]. Unfortunately, a significant percentage
of online reviews are fraudulent. Some businesses try to boost
sales by posting fake positive reviews of their enterprises or
fake negative reviews of their competitors. Alternatively, they
may hire third parties to do these things.
One study estimated that 16 percent of restaurant reviews on
Yelp were fraudulent [122]. Another researcher concluded
that one-third of all Internet reviews were fake [122]. Fake
reviews undermine the credibility of the information
consumers are using to make purchasing decisions.
In some instances consumers can identify suspect reviews. For
example, by tracing through the reviewer’s alias, a consumer
can see how many reviews that reviewer has written. An alias
that has posted only a single review is suspicious [122].
Another way to screen reviews is to look at the number of
stars. “Pretty much all fake reviews are 5-star or 1-star
reviews. Nobody leaves a fake 3-star review. What would be
the point?” says Nicholas White of the Daily Dot [123].
Online review provider Yelp invests millions of dollars
annually attempting to identify fake reviews posted to its site.
About 10 percent of its employees are on the hunt for
fraudulent reviews, and it has also developed sophisticated
software to detect suspicious reviews. About 25 percent of
the reviews submitted to Yelp don’t make it past the
screening and are not recommended [123].
3.10.3 Online Predators
Instant messaging refers to a system allowing two people to
“chat” via typing in real time over the Internet. Instant
messaging is popular among young adults because it allows
them to communicate without paying SMS text-messaging
charges. Kik Messenger is a popular instant messaging app
for smartphones; as of January 2018, it had 300 million
users, including 33 percent of the teens in the United States
[124]. In addition to text messages, Kik Messenger also
allows users to send images and videos.
In August 2013, police began to issue warnings about people
using Kit Messenger to facilitate their perpetration of sexual
abuse and assault [125]. A few months later, 39-year-old
Manuel Salto pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual
conduct after using Kik Messenger to meet a 13-year-old girl
whom he later lured to his home for sexual relations [126].
Other apps as well have been used by people who engage in
pedophilia. According to police, Whisper is particularly
dangerous because it allows users to post their location,
making it easier for predators to find local targets [127].
8
For more than 15 years, police have launched sting
operations to arrest people seeking sex with minors.
Sometimes these sting operations have resulted in dozens of
arrests. For example, the Osceola County sheriff’s
department in Florida conducted a one-week-long sting
operation in January 2012 that resulted in the arrest of 40
adults, including a professional golfer, a teacher, and a swim
coach. Deputies arrested the suspects as they arrived at an
undercover house, thinking they were going to have sex with
a minor. According to the sheriff’s department, before the
suspects arrived at the rendezvous, most of them had already
sent sexually explicit images to the “children” they were
chatting with [128]. A similar sting operation in Lincolnton,
North Carolina, in May 2015 led to 17 arrests [129].
Another sting operation in Galveston, Texas, in June 2015
led to the arrest of 11 men and women hoping to have sex
with children [130].
In 2014 WTSP-TV aired an exposé critical of the sting
operations in Polk County, Florida, alleging that detectives
were resorting to more extreme methods to keep up their
arrest rates. For example, an officer responds to an ad on an
adult dating site, pretending to be an adult woman, but once
an online relationship begins to develop, the detective
suggests the man might be interested in having sex with
“her” child. Some police tactics have resulted in cases being
thrown out of court, with judges making comments such as
these:
“It was the agent who repeatedly steered the
conversation back to sexual activity with a minor.”
“The government made a concerted effort to lure him
into committing a crime.”
“The law does not tolerate government action to
provoke a law-abiding citizen to commit a crime”
[131].
3.10.4 Ethical Evaluations
of Police Sting Operations
Is it morally right for police detectives to pose as children on
the Internet to entrap people who seek to have sex with
children?
Utilitarian Analysis
Let’s consider the various consequences of such a sting
operation. A person allegedly interested in having sex with an
underage minor is arrested and charged with attempted child
rape. Suppose the person is found guilty and must serve time
in prison. The direct effects of the sting operation are the
denial of one person’s freedom (a harm) and an increase in
public safety (a benefit). Since the entire public is safer and
only a single person is harmed, this is a net good.
The sting operation also has indirect effects. Publicity about
the sting operation may deter other people who seek sex with
children. This, too, is a beneficial result. It is harder to gauge
how knowledge of sting operations influences innocent
citizens. First, it may reduce citizens’ trust in the police.
Many people believe that if they are doing nothing wrong,
they have nothing to fear. Others may become less inclined to
provide information to the police when requested. Second,
sting operations can affect everyone’s online experiences.
They demonstrate that people are not always who they claim
to be. This knowledge may make people less vulnerable to
being taken advantage of, but it may also reduce the amount
of trust people have in others. Sting operations prove that
supposedly private conversations can actually be made
public. If instant messaging conversations lack honesty and
privacy, people will be less willing to engage in serious
conversations. As a result, instant messaging loses some of its
utility as a communications system. How much weight you
give to the various consequences of police sting operations
using instant messaging determines whether the net
consequences are positive or negative.
9
Kantian Analysis
A Kantian focuses on the will leading to the action rather
than the results of the action. The police are responsible for
maintaining public safety. People who engage in pedophilia
endanger innocent children. Therefore, it is the duty of police
to try to prevent them from accomplishing what they intend
to do. The will of the police detective is arrest people who
engage in pedophilia. This seems straightforward enough.
If we dig a level deeper, however, we run into trouble. In
order to arrest a person who wishes to engage in pedophilia,
the police must identify this person. Since a person seeking
sex with a child unlikely to confess on the spot if asked a
question by a police officer, the police lay a trap. In other
words, the will of the police detective is to deceive a person
who engages in pedophilia in order to catch them. To a
Kantian, lying is wrong, no matter how noble the objective.
By collecting evidence of instant-messaging conversations, the
police detective also violates the presumed privacy of this
medium. While police officers have a duty to protect the
public safety, it is wrong for them to break other moral laws
in order to accomplish this purpose. From a Kantian point of
view, the sting operation is morally wrong.
Social-Contract-Theory Analysis
An adherent of social contract theory could argue that in
order to benefit everyone, there are certain moral rules that
people communicating online ought to follow. For example,
people ought to be honest, and conversations ought to be
kept confidential. By misrepresenting identity and/or
intentions, the person engaging in pedophilia has broken a
moral rule and ought to be punished. In conducting sting
operations, however, police detectives also misrepresent their
identities and record everything typed by suspects. The
upholders of the law have broken the rules, too.
Furthermore, we have the presumption of innocence until
proof of guilt. What if the police detective, through
miscommunication or bad judgment, actually entraps
someone who is not a person who engages in pedophilia? In
this case, an innocent person has not broken any rules. They
were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet
society, represented by the police detective, did not provide
the benefits instant messaging users expect to receive (honest
communications and privacy). In short, there is a conflict
between society’s need to punish a wrongdoer and its
expectation that everyone (including the agents of the
government) abide by its moral rules.
Summary of Ethical Analyses
To summarize our ethical evaluation of police sting
operations, the actions of the police seem immoral from a
Kantian point of view. Evaluations using the other ethical
theories do not yield a clear-cut endorsement or
condemnation of the stings. While the goals of the police are
laudable, they accomplish their goals through deception and
by revealing details of conversations thought to be private.
Sting operations are more likely to be viewed as morally
acceptable by someone who is more focused on the results of
an action than the methods used; in other words, a
consequentialist.
0
3.10.5 False Information
The Web is a more open communication medium than
newspapers, radio stations, or television stations. Individuals
or groups whose points of view might never be published in a
newspaper or broadcast on a television or radio show may
create an attractive Web site. The ease with which people
may get information out via the Web is one of the reasons the
Web contains billions of pages. However, the fact that no one
has to review a Web page before it is published means the
quality of information available on the Web varies widely.
You can find many Web sites devoted to the American
manned space program. You can also find many Web sites
that argue the Moon landings were a hoax by NASA. Many
Web sites describe the Holocaust committed by the Nazis
before and during World War II. Other sites falsely claim the
Holocaust never happened. A TikTok post claiming that the
Titanic never sank attracted more than 11 million views
before it was deleted [132].
Disputes about commonly held assumptions did not begin
with the Web. Some television networks and newspapers are
well known for giving a forum to people who question
information provided through government agencies. Twice in
2001, the Fox TV network aired a program called
“Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” The
program concludes NASA faked the Moon landing in the
Nevada desert. Supermarket tabloids are notorious for their
provocative, misleading headlines. Experienced consumers
take into account the source of the information.
Most people would agree that 60 Minutes on CBS is a more
reliable source of information than the Conspiracy Theory
series. Similarly, people expect information they find in the
New York Times to be more reliable than the stories they
read in a tabloid.
In traditional publishing, various mechanisms are put in place
to improve the quality of the final product. For example,
before Addison-Wesley published the first edition of this
book, an editor sent draft copies of the manuscript to a dozen
reviewers who checked it for errors, omissions, or misleading
statements. I revised the manuscript to respond to the
reviewers’ suggestions. After I submitted a revised
manuscript, a copy editor made final changes to improve the
readability of the text, and a proofreader corrected
typographical errors. Every subsequent edition has benefited
from the feedback of experienced and knowledgeable college
professors reviewing the proposed changes.
Web pages, on the other hand, can be published without any
review. As you’re undoubtedly well aware, the quality of
Web pages varies dramatically. Fortunately, search engines
can help people identify those Web pages that are most
relevant and of the highest quality. Let’s take a look at how
the Google search engine does this.
The Google search engine keeps a database of many billions
of Web pages. A software algorithm called PageRank ranks
the quality of these pages. PageRank invokes a kind of voting
mechanism. If Web page A links to Web page B, then page B
gets a vote. However, all votes do not have the same weight.
If Web page A is itself getting a lot of votes, then page A’s
link to page B gives its vote more weight than a link to B
from an unpopular page.
1
When a user makes a query to Google, the search engine first
finds the pages that closely match the query. It then considers
their quality (as measured by the voting algorithm) to
determine how to rank the relevant pages.
3.10.6 Cyberbullying
In November 2002, Ghyslain Raza, a high-school student
living in Quebec, Canada, borrowed a videotape and used
one of the high school’s video cameras to film himself
awkwardly swinging a golf ball retriever like a light saber, à
la Darth Maul in Star Wars Episode I. A few months later,
the owner of the videotape discovered the content and shared
it with some friends. After one of them digitized the scene
and made it available on the Internet, millions of people
downloaded the file in the first two weeks [133]. Ghyslain
was nicknamed “the Star Wars kid,” endured prolonged
harassment from other students, and eventually dropped out
of school [134]. By 2006 the video had been viewed more
than 900 million times [135].
Cyberbullying is the use of the Internet or the phone system
to inflict psychological harm on another person. Frequently,
a group gangs up to cyberbully the victim. Examples of
cyberbullying include the following:
Repeatedly texting or emailing hurtful messages to
another person
Spreading lies about another person
Tricking someone into revealing highly personal
information
“Outing” or revealing someone’s secrets online
Posting embarrassing photographs or videos of other
people without their consent
Impersonating someone else online in order to damage
that person’s reputation
Threatening or creating significant fear in another
person
Surveys have revealed that cyberbullying is common among
teenagers. Cox Communications surveyed 655 American
teenagers in 2009, and 19 percent reported that they had
been cyberbullied online, via cell phone, or through both
media. Ten percent of the teenagers admitted to
cyberbullying someone else. When asked why they had
cyberbullied someone else, the most common responses were
“they deserved it” and “to get back at someone” [110].
In some instances cyberbullying has led to the suicide of the
victim, as in the case of 13-year-old Megan Meier. According
to her mother, “Megan had a lifelong struggle with weight
and self-esteem” [136]. She had talked about suicide in third
grade, and ever since then she had been seeing a therapist
[136]. Megan’s spirits soared when she met a 16-year-old boy
named Josh Evans on MySpace. They flirted online for four
weeks but never met in person. Then Josh seemed to sour on
their relationship. One day he let her know that he didn’t
know if he wanted to be friends with her anymore. The next
day he posted the following [136, 137]:
You are a bad person and everybody hates you.
Have a shitty rest of your life.
The world would be a better place without you.
2
When Megan angrily responded to this post, others ganged
up on her: “Megan Meier is a slut”; “Megan Meier is fat”
[136]. Later that afternoon, Megan died by suicide in her
bedroom.
Eventually, the community learned that “Josh Evans” did not
exist. The MySpace account had been created just a couple of
houses away from the Meier home by 18-year-old Ashley
Grills, 13-year-old Sarah Drew, and Lori Drew, Sarah’s
mother. Sarah had a falling out with Megan, and Ashley
suggested creating the MySpace account to find out what
Megan might be saying about Sarah. Lori Drew had
approved the plan. Most of the messages from “Josh” had
been written by Sarah or Ashley, but Lori Drew had been
aware of what they were doing [138].
The county’s district attorney declined to prosecute Lori
Drew because there was no Missouri law against
cyberbullying [139]. The FBI investigated the case, however,
and in 2008 federal prosecutors charged Drew with four
felony counts under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for
violating the MySpace terms of service. A jury found her not
guilty of these crimes but did convict her of three
misdemeanors [140]. In 2009 a US district judge overturned
these convictions, stating that criminal charges should not
have been brought against Drew for breaking a contract with
an Internet service provider [141].
In April 2009, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention
Act was introduced in the US House of Representatives. The
purpose of the proposed law was to “impose criminal
penalties on anyone who transmits in interstate or foreign
commerce a communication intended to coerce, intimidate,
harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another
person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated,
and hostile behavior” [142]. Some civil libertarians objected
to the proposed legislation, arguing that it would take away
free-speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to
the US Constitution. The law did not win approval by the
House of Representatives.
3.10.7 Revenge Porn
The Collins English Dictionary defines revenge porn to be “a
pornographic image or film which is published, posted (e.g.,
on the Internet), or otherwise circulated without the consent
of one or more of the participants, usually with malicious
and vindictive intent, such as following a break-up” [143].
Revenge porn is a special case of cyberbullying.
The Web site Is Anyone Up?, launched in 2010 by Hunter
Moore, quickly became a magnet for revenge porn
submissions, significantly raising the visibility of this issue.
Moore appeared on the talk show Anderson, along with two
women whose images had appeared on the site without their
permission. When asked by Anderson Cooper whether he felt
bad about what he had done “to these two women,” Moore
replied to the women, “No one . . . made you take these
pictures. It’s 2011; everything’s on the Internet” [144]. One
of the women responded, “If we’re choosing to send them to
someone we trust, that doesn’t mean we expect them to show
up on the Internet” [144]. Moore shut down the Web site in
April 2012. In February 2015 he pleaded guilty to one count
of accessing a protected computer to obtain information for
financial gain and one count of aggravated identity theft, and
in December 2015 he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years
in federal prison [145].
3
Posting revenge porn has been criminalized in Australia,
France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Malta, the Philippines,
Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. In 2011, after Noe Iniguez broke up
with his girlfriend, he posted topless photos of her on her
employer’s Facebook page. Three years later Iniguez became
the first person to be convicted under California’s law
criminalizing the unauthorized posting of nude images [146].
In the first six months of 2015, three corporations took
action to protect victims of revenge porn. Reddit announced
it was banning the posting of sexually explicit images without
the consent of the people in the images [147]. Twitter
updated its rules to include, “You may not post intimate
photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the
subject’s consent,” and it promised to remove links to such
content [148]. Google announced that it would create an
online form enabling victims to request that nude or sexually
explicit images of themselves posted without their consent be
withheld from Google search results [149].
3.11 Internet
Addiction
Many people spend a great deal of time staring at screens.
You probably know someone who is constantly texting or
instant messaging. Perhaps you have a friend who plays
computer games for hours on end. Why do people get so
attached to their devices? Is it possible to become addicted to
these activities?
According to psychiatrist Edward Hallowell, the brains of
heavy users of digital devices crave newness, and every text
or email message results in a release of the neurotransmitter
dopamine that feeds the craving [150]. That’s why we find it
difficult to break away from these activities [151].
Another reason people can find it hard to leave their devices
is because businesses are trying to keep them attached. The
term attention economy refers to the idea that the attention
of a consumer has economic value. Businesses vie for the
attention of consumers through Web sites, social media, and
other channels. They use technology to deliver personalized
content designed to keep consumers engaged.
3.11.1 Is Internet Addiction
Real?
Our electronic devices are like addictive drugs in the sense
that when we use them, they provide our brains with
immediate positive feedback [152]. Psychiatrist Jerald Block
maintains that Internet addiction is a common disorder with
at least three variants: gaming, “sexual preoccupations,” and
messaging [153]. According to Block, all of these variants
share the following characteristics: engaging in excessively
long sessions online; becoming angry, tense, or depressed
when forced to be away from a device; feeling a need to
enhance online experiences by obtaining better equipment or
spending more time online; and suffering negative social
consequences.
4
Citing insufficient research data, the American Psychiatric
Association did not include Internet addiction in its most
recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
[154]. On the other hand, Internet addiction has been
recognized and taken seriously in both South Korea and
China since 2007.
The average South Korean high-school student spends 23
hours per week gaming [155]. After 10 cardiopulmonaryrelated deaths in Internet cafeś (Figure 3.2), South Korea
began training mental health counselors in how to treat
Internet addiction [156, 157]. In 2011 the South Korean
government passed a law prohibiting children under the age
of 16 from accessing online games between midnight and 6
a.m. [158].
F‍igure 3.2
Many South Koreans play online games in centers called PC bangs. In
2005 a 28-year-old South Korean man died after playing one game
practically nonstop for 50 hours.
(Kim-Jae Hwan/AFP/Getty Images)
In 2007 the Chinese government issued a regulation limiting
people under 18 to three hours of online game play per day,
and in 2021 it put in place even stricter limits. Children and
teenagers in China are no longer allowed to play online
games on school days, and their weekend and holiday game
play is limited to one hour per day [159].
Our concern in this section is excessive use of digital devices
that causes harm. We will use the term “Internet addiction”
to describe this behavior because it is the term most widely
used by the press, even as we recognize that experts disagree
about whether excessive use is a genuine addiction.
5
3.11.2 Contributing Factors
to Addiction
According to Stanton Peele, social, situational, and individual
factors can increase a person’s susceptibility to addiction. For
example, peer groups play an important role in determining
how individuals use alcohol and other drugs. People in
stressful situations are more likely to become addicted, as are
those who lack social support and intimacy, and those who
have limited opportunities for “rewarding, productive
activity” [160]. Individual factors that make a person more
susceptible to addiction include a tendency to pursue an
activity to excess, a lack of achievement, a fear of failure, and
feelings of alienation.
Kimberly Young’s studies led her to “believe that behaviors
related to the Internet have the same ability to provide
emotional relief, mental escape, and ways to avoid problems
as do alcohol, drugs, food, or gambling” [161]. She noted
that those who are addicted to the Internet are typically
addicted to a single application.
3.11.3 Ethical Evaluation of
Internet Addiction
People who use digital devices excessively can harm
themselves and others for whom they are responsible. For
this reason, excessive use of digital devices is a moral issue.
Kantianism, utilitarianism, and social contract theory all
share the Enlightenment view that individuals, as rational
beings, have the capacity and the obligation to use their
critical judgment to govern their lives [162]. Kant held that
addiction is a vice, because it’s wrong to allow your bodily
desires to dominate your mind [163]. Mill maintained that
some pleasures are more valuable than others and that people
have the obligation to help each other distinguish better
pleasures from worse ones [96]. Ultimately, people are
responsible for the choices they make. Even if an addict is
“hooked,” the addict is responsible for choosing to engage in
the activity the first time.
The Enlightenment view assumes that people are capable of
controlling their compulsions. According to Jeffrey Reiman,
vices are “dispositions that undermine the sovereignty of
practical reason. Dispositions, like habits, are hard but not
impossible to overcome, and undermining something
weakens it without necessarily destroying it entirely” [162, p.
89].
Reiman’s view is supported by Peele, who believes addicts
can choose to recover from their addictions. “People recover
to the extent that they (1) believe an addiction is hurting
them and wish to overcome it, (2) feel enough efficacy to
manage their withdrawal and life without the addiction, and
(3) find sufficient alternative rewards to make life without the
addiction worthwhile” [160, p. 156].
While our analysis to this point has concluded that individual
addicts are morally responsible for their addictions, it’s also
possible for a society to bear some collective moral
responsibility for the addictions of some of its members. We
have already discussed how social conditions can increase a
person’s susceptibility to addiction, and Peele states an addict
will not recover unless life without the addiction has
sufficient rewards. Some people use digital devices as a way
to escape into their own world, because in the “real world”
they suffer from social isolation [164]. Perhaps we should
reflect on whether any of our actions or inactions make
certain members of our community feel excluded.
6
Summary
The Internet and cellular networks are powerful and flexible
technologies that have revolutionized communication by
making it possible for billions of people to communicate with
each other. Never before have so many people around the
globe been able to interact: sharing information, engaging in
commercial transactions, organizing political movements,
competing in online games, helping those in need, and much
more. At the same time, those who seek to exploit others
have found new ways to do so using these same technologies.
The Web provides a remarkably simple way for people to
post and access information, and it now contains several
billion indexed pages. The Web has replaced printed
encyclopedias and is giving books, journals, and newspapers
a run for their money. It contains images of sublime beauty
and shocking cruelty, uplifting poetry and expletive-ridden
hate speech, well-organized encyclopedias and figments of
paranoid imaginations, useful software and hidden computer
viruses. In short, it is a reflection of the best and the worst of
humanity.
Texting has supported myriad activities, from the social to
the deadly serious. It allows friends and family members to
check in on each other and set up social encounters, it is an
important way for people to make international money
transfers without banks, and it has also been used to organize
mass protests and overthrow governments.
As social media have become more popular, they have
become an increasingly important way for people to get the
news. In fact, two-thirds of Americans now read news stories
on social media sites, principally Facebook. Facebook’s
algorithms help ensure people will see news stories that
reinforce their views rather than challenge them. For this
reason, some commentators fear that Facebook may be
harming democracy by increasing political polarization.
Governments have responded to the latent power of these
new technologies in a variety of ways. The most repressive
governments have made the Internet inaccessible to the
masses. Other governments have instituted controls that
prevent certain sites from being accessed. To promote social
and political stability, the Chinese government prohibits
access to certain Internet sites and sometimes restricts cell
phone service. On one occasion it shut down the Internet in
an entire region for months. In an effort to ensure children
are not exposed to online pornography, the United States
government requires libraries to install antipornography
filters. Given the focus in the United States on preventing
children from being exposed to pornography, it is ironic that
many minors have voluntarily created and transmitted
explicit images of themselves.
Those who wish to exploit other people have found ways to
use these new communication technologies to achieve their
ends. Spammers are sending out hundreds of billions of spam
emails every day. Others make a living selling stolen credit
card information. Millions of people every year are the
targets of identity theft.
7
The challenge for each of us is to reflect on our own actions
and ponder whether there are times we may have stepped
over the line and put ourselves first, privileging our own
needs and desires over those of other people. Cyberbullying
and posting revenge porn are the result of decisions made by
individuals.
Finally, these new communication technologies have
provided new opportunities for people to harm themselves. A
good example is the phenomenon commonly referred to as
Internet addiction. Some people become so engaged with
their digital devices that they spend too much time with their
eyes glued to their screens and too little time taking care of
their responsibilities to themselves and to others.
What is the proper governmental response to the Internet
addiction crisis? The governments of South Korea and China
have put limits on the number of hours per day that children
can play online games, and an educational campaign in South
Korean schools informs children of the dangers of Internet
addiction and encourages healthy alternative activities, such
as listening to music.
Further Reading, Listening,
and Viewing
Stefana Broadbent. “How the Internet Enables
Intimacy.” TEDGlobal 2009, July 2009. 9:48.
www.ted.com/talks/stefana_broadbent_how_the_internet_enab
Malcolm Gladwell. “Small Change: Why the
Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” New Yorker,
October 4, 2010.
Ted Greenwald. “Under the Influence: How Facebook
and Twitter and Candy Crush Get Us Addicted to
Swiping and Clicking and Posting.” Wired, January
2015, pp. 76–77.
David Grossman. “The Rise of ‘Fake News,’
Manipulation and ‘Alternative Facts.’” BBC Newsnight, February 6, 2017. 4:27.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aTApGWVGoI.
Tristan Harris, Ramsay Brown, Larry Rosen, Nancy
Cheever, and Gabe Zickermann. “Brain Hacking.”
Interview by Anderson Cooper. 60 Minutes, CBS. April
9, 2017. 13:47. www.youtube.com/watch?
v=awAMTQZmvPE.
Kashmir Hill. “A Dad Took Photos of His Naked
Toddler for the Doctor. Google Flagged Him as a
Criminal.” New York Times, August 21, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/googlesurveillance-toddler-photo.html.
Mike Rugnetta. “Are Virtual Video Game Economies
Becoming Real?” Idea Channel, September 19, 2012.
5:26. video.pbs.org.
William Siu. “I Make Video Games. I Won’t Let My
Daughters Play Them.” New York Times, October 2,
2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/02/opinion/videogame-addiction.html.
Derek Thompson. “Be Your Selves.” 1843, April/May
2017. www.1843magazine.com/technology/be-yourselves.
Ali Velshi. “How Fake News Grows in a Post-Fact
World.” TEDxQueensU, March 9, 2017. 18:23.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkAUqQZCyrM.
Bill Wasik. “Welcome to the Programmable World.”
Wired, June 2013.
Judy Woodruff. “Google’s Schmidt and Cohen Discuss
the Digital Future.” PBS NewsHour, May 2, 2013.
9:38. video.pbs.org.
8
Judy Woodruff. “Spotting the Fakes Among the FiveStar Reviews.” PBS NewsHour, January 19, 2015.
9:30. video.pbs.org.
“High Speed Internet Is Connecting Palau Women to
New Opportunities.” Asian Development Bank, March
20, 2018. www.adb.org/news/videos/high-speedinternet-connecting-palau-women-new-opportunities.
“Mobile Money: Kenyans Talk About How M-PESA
Has Changed Their Lives.” WorldRemit, March 29,
2017. 2:43. www.youtube.com/watch?
v=QKjofAUhSso.
Review Questions
1. Nearly all spam is blocked by spam filters. Why does
sending spam continue to be so popular?
2. Why has spam’s share of email traffic been in decline
since 2009?
3. Many commercial enterprises support both Web sites
and mobile apps. Why?
4. What are the similarities and the differences between
texting and instant messaging?
5. How have social media affected the news people are
exposed to?
6. How has the Internet undermined traditional print
newspapers?
7. Define censorship in your own words.
8. What characteristics of the Internet make the
censorship of Internet content difficult?
9. Why do broadcasters in the United States have more
limited First-Amendment rights than book publishers?
10. How has sexting by teens created new legal challenges?
11. What is the leading form of identity theft?
12. Why are college students particularly vulnerable to
identity theft?
13. Give two examples of high-tech methods of identity
theft and two examples of low-tech methods of identity
theft.
14. Define cyberbullying in your own words.
15. What physiological reason has been given for the
difficulty some people experience detaching themselves
from their digital devices?
16. What is the Enlightenment view regarding
responsibility for addiction?
Discussion
Questions
17. Facebook’s username policy requires each Facebook
user to use “the name they go by in everyday life”
[165]. The policy forbids the use of professional or
religious titles, phrases instead of names, and offensive
words. Many Indigenous people have had their
accounts deactivated for supposedly using a fake name,
including Dana Lone Hill, Shane Creepingbear, and
Lance Brown Eyes [166]. Meanwhile, people who set
up accounts with phony but plausible usernames have
not had their usernames challenged. Should Facebook
require every user to use their real name? If so, what
would be a fair way to enforce this requirement?
9
18. Why is instant messaging or texting more popular
among young adults than making phone calls?
19. Why is “cold calling” considered to be an acceptable
sales practice, but spamming isn’t?
20. Internet service providers monitor their chat rooms and
expel users who violate their codes of conduct. For
example, users can be kicked off for insulting a person
or a group of people based on their race, religion, or
sexual orientation. Is it wrong for an ISP to expel
someone for hate speech?
21. Stockbrokers are now required to save all their instant
messaging communications. Is having a record of
everything you type good or bad? Do you think this
requirement will change the behavior of brokers?
22. There is a thriving “real-world” market for gold,
artifacts, and avatars from virtual worlds such as
World of Warcraft. In effect, rich Westerners are
offshoring game playing to China. Do you find this
image disturbing?
23. What are the benefits and harms of Internet
censorship?
24. Do you ever read a newspaper? If so, how often? If not,
how do you get your news? How do you know that the
news you consume is accurate?
25. Should the tax dollars of citizens of democratic nations
be used to help people in authoritarian nations get
around the Web censorship of their repressive
governments?
26. Should people publishing accusations against others on
their blogs or Facebook pages be held responsible if
they disseminate false information?
27. Should a college or university have the right to suspend
students who brag about breaking its rules on their
Facebook pages?
28. In September 2012, Joseph Aziz, a graduate student at
Montclair State University in New Jersey, posted a
YouTube video in which he said that a fellow student’s
legs look like “a pair of bleached hams.” The university
disciplined Aziz for violating the university’s code of
conduct, ordered him to avoid all contact with the
other student, and forbade him from posting anything
else about the other student on social media. After
being disciplined, Aziz complained about the gag order
in a private group on Facebook and made a joke about
escaping the other student’s “tyrannical ham lock.” A
member of the Facebook group copied Aziz’s
comments to university administrators, who then gave
Aziz a one-semester suspension that appears on his
official college transcript [167]. Was the response of
Montclair State University appropriate?
29. Discuss similarities and differences between the Web
and each of these other ways that we communicate: the
telephone system, physical mail, bookstores, movie
theaters, newspapers, broadcast and cable TV. Should
governments ignore the Web, or should they regulate it
somehow? If governments should regulate the Web,
should the regulations be similar to the regulations for
one of the aforementioned communication systems, or
should they be unique in significant ways?
0
30. The convenience of Wikipedia makes it a popular
reference for students. After several instances in which
students cited incorrect information, however, the
history department at Middlebury College prohibited
references to Wikipedia articles in papers or exams. Did
the Middlebury history department go too far? What is
the proper role, if any, for Wikipedia in academic
research?
31. Should bloggers be given the same rights as newspaper,
magazine, or television journalists?
32. Should children be prevented from accessing some Web
sites? Who should be responsible for the actions of
children surfing the Web?
33. Are there any circumstances under which sexting is
morally acceptable?
34. What is the age at which a parent or guardian should
provide a child with a cell phone? Should younger
children be provided with cell phones having fewer
features?
35. Review the exchange in Section 3.10.7 between Hunter
Moore, creator of a Web site featuring revenge porn,
and one of the women whose image had appeared on
the site without her permission. Who has the more
compelling argument? Why? If you could ask Hunter
Moore a follow-up question, what would it be? If you
could ask the woman a follow-up question, what
would it be?
36. Discuss the morality of Google’s page-ranking
algorithm. Does it systematically exclude Web pages
containing opinions held only by a small segment of the
population? Should every opinion on the Web be given
equal consideration?
37. What is the longest amount of time you have ever spent
in a single game session on a smartphone, tablet, or
computer? Have you ever been so engrossed in a game
that you ignored bodily needs, such as eating or going
to the bathroom?
38. Should Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty be pulled off
store shelves and not marketed to children?
39. In the United States television commercials for
cigarettes are banned. Should there be a ban on
commercials for violent video games?
40. The income of companies providing persistent online
games depends on the number of subscribers they
attract. Since consumers have a choice of many
products, each company is motivated to create the best
possible experience for its customers. Role-playing
adventures have no set length. When playing one of
these games, it’s easy to spend more time on the
computer than originally planned. Some subscribers
cause harm to themselves and others by spending too
much time playing these games. Should the designers of
persistent online games bear some moral responsibility
for this problem?
1
41. The governments of South Korea and China have taken
action to restrict the number of hours per day children
can access online games. Should our government take
similar action?
42. A school district forbids students from using their cell
phones on school buses, but many students ignore this
rule. A frustrated bus driver installs a cell phone
jammer on his bus. When the jammer is turned on, cell
phones within 40 feet stop working. (The use of
jammers is against the law.) The bus driver says, “The
kids think they are sneaky by hiding low in their seats
and using their phones. Now the kids can’t figure out
why their phones don’t work, but can’t ask because
they will get in trouble! It’s fun to watch them try to
get a signal” [168].
Discuss the morality of the bus driver’s use of the
jammer.
43. According to some commentators, Facebook and
Twitter played a vital role in the Arab Spring uprising
because they made it possible for activists to organize
large protests in a short amount of time. Others argue
that Facebook and Twitter were simply tools used by
activists and that genuine social grievances led to the
revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. What is your view?
44. After popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011,
the US government said it would spend $30 million to
fund the development of new services and technologies
designed to allow activists in other countries to get
around Internet restrictions imposed by their
governments.
Announcing this initiative, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton said, “We are convinced that an open Internet
fosters long-term peace, progress and prosperity. The
reverse is also true. An Internet that is closed and
fractured, where different governments can block
activity or change the rules on a whim—where speech is
censored or punished, and privacy does not exist—that
is an Internet that can cut off opportunities for peace
and progress and discourage innovation and
entrepreneurship” [169].
Should the US government provide activists in other
countries the tools to get around Internet restrictions
imposed by authoritarian governments?
45. In July 2011, activists shut down a San Francisco
subway station as a way of protesting the death of a
drunk man shot by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
police officer [170]. A month later, the subway system
blocked cell-phone service at several stations in an
effort to prevent another protest. BART officials said
protesters were planning to use their mobile devices to
coordinate their activities and keep track of police
movements. The agency pointed out that civil
disturbances at crowded subway stations during rush
hour could create unsafe conditions for commuters,
BART employees, and the protesters themselves [171].
Was BART justified in blocking cell-phone service?
46. What role do online reviews play in your life as a
consumer? Do you find online reviews to be more
reliable or less reliable than reviews from friends and
family members?
2
In-Class Exercises
47. Divide the class into groups. Each group should come
up with a variant of the case study “Anh the Acme
Accountant,” in which both a Kantian evaluation and
an act-utilitarian evaluation would conclude Anh did
something wrong.
48. Divide the class into groups. Each group should come
up with a variant of the case study “Kate’s Blog,” in
which the analysis from the perspective of social
contract theory would conclude Kate did nothing
wrong, but an act-utilitarian evaluation would
conclude Kate did something wrong.
49. Divide the class into teams representing each of the
following groups:
Small, struggling business
Large, established corporation
Internet service provider
Consumer
Discuss the value of direct email versus other forms of
advertising, such as direct mail, television advertising,
radio advertising, the Yellow Pages, and setting up a
Web site.
50. A company uses pop-up advertising to market its
software product, which blocks popups from appearing
when someone is surfing the Web. Debate the morality
of the company’s marketing strategy.
51. Ad-blocking software attachments to Web browsers
enable a Web surfer to visit Web sites without having
to view the pop-up advertisements associated with
these Web pages. Debate this proposition: “People who
use ad-blocking software are violating an implicit
‘social contract’ with companies that use advertising
revenues as a means of providing free access to Web
pages.”
52. In 2000 the Estonian parliament passed a law declaring
Internet access to be a fundamental human right of its
citizens. Divide the class into two groups (pro and con)
to debate the following proposition: Internet access
should be a fundamental human right, along with such
other fundamental human rights as the right to life and
the right to free speech.
53. How do you determine the credibility of information
you get from the Web? How would you rank the
reliability of information provided by each of the
following sources of Web pages? Does the type of
information you’re seeking affect your ranking?
Establishment newspaper
Counterculture newspaper
Television network
Corporation
Nonprofit organization
Individual
54. Martin Dula has suggested that parents should not
provide their children with phones capable of taking
photos and videos because these phones tempt children
to participate in sexting [93].
3
Divide the class into groups of four or five students.
Each group should discuss the proposition: Parents and
legal guardians should not allow their children under
the age of 16 to own cell phones capable of taking,
transmitting, or receiving photographs or videos. After
a reasonable amount of time, teams should take turns
sharing their conclusions with the rest of the class.
References
[1] Jill Cowan, Shawn Hubler, and Ivan Penn. “California
Leaders Credit Cellphone Alert for Sudden
Conservation.” New York Times, September 7, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/07/us/californiapower-grid-cellphone-alert.html.
[2] Tavneet Suri and William Jack. “The Long-run Poverty
and Gender Impacts of Mobile Money.” Science,
354(6317): 1288–1292, December 9, 2016.
[3] “#StatusOfMind: Social Media and Young People’s
Mental Health and Wellbeing.” Royal Society for
Public Health, London, 2017.
www.rsph.org.uk/uploads/assets/uploaded/62be270aa55f-4719- ad668c2ec7a74c2a.pdf.
[4] Craig Silverman and Lawrence Alexander. “How Teens
in the Balkans Are Duping Trump Supporters with Fake
News.” BuzzFeed, November 3, 2016.
www.buzzfeed.com.
[5] Ivan Simic. “Top 10 Highest-Viewed Esports Events of
2022.” Esports Insider, December 26, 2022.
esportsinsider.com/2022/12/highest-viewed-esportsevents-2022.
[6] “Email Statistics Report: 2020-2024 --- Executive
Summary.” Radicati Group, February 2020.
www.radicati.com.
[7] Brad Templeton. “Origin of the Term ‘Spam’ to Mean
Net Abuse.” Templetons.com, July 8, 2005.
www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html.
[8] Peter H. Lewis. “An Ad (Gasp!) in Cyberspace.” New
York Times, April 19, 1994.
[9] Joanne Pimonova. “Email Spam Trends at a Glance:
2001–2012.” EmailTray, June 5, 2012.
www.email.tray.com.
[10] Darya Gudkova and Maria Namestnikova. “Spam
Evolution 2011.” Kaspersky Security Bulletin, March 1,
2012. securelist.com.
[11] Justin M. Rao and David H. Reiley. “The Economics of
Spam.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3): 87–
110, Summer 2012.
[12] Henry Dalziel. “Costs of Nefarious Services from the
Underground Cybercriminal World.” November 15,
2012. www.concise-courses.com.
[13] Saul Hansell. “Internet Is Losing Ground in Battle
Against Spam.” New York Times, April 22, 2003.
[14] Joe Stewart. “Top Spam Botnets Exposed.” Dell
SecureWorks, April 8, 2008.
www.secureworks.com/research/threats/topbotnets.
[15] Elena Bondarenko, Darya Gudkova, and Maria
Namestnikova. “Spam Evolution 2010.” Kaspersky
Security Bulletin, February 17, 2011. securelist.com.
4
[16] Tatyana Kulikova, Roman Dedenok, Olga Svistunova,
Andrey Kovtun, and Irina Shimko. “Spam and Phishing
in 2022.” Securelist (Web site), February 16, 2023.
securelist.com.
[17] Brian Whitworth and Elizabeth Whitworth. “Spam and
the Social-Technical Gap.” Computer, 37(10): 38–45,
October 2004.
[18] Tim Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. HarperCollins
Publishers, New York, NY, 1999.
[19] Gianni Catlfamo. “The Death of the Browser.”
KetchumBlog, February 19, 2011. blog.ketchum.com.
[20] “Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales.” United States
Census Bureau, May 18, 2023. www.census.gov.
[21] Craig Newmark. Craigslist (Web site). Accessed March
17, 2018. www.craigslist.org/about/craig_newmark.
[22] S. Dixon. “Most Popular Social Networks Worldwide
as of January 2023, Ranked by Number of Monthly
Active Users.” Statista (Web site), February 14, 2023.
www.statista.com.
[23] Nicola Clark. “Selecting a Seatmate to Make Skies
Friendlier.” New York Times, February 24, 2012.
[24] Daniel H. Pink. “The Book Stops Here.” Wired, page
125, March 2005.
[25] Paul Festa. “Dialing for Bloggers.” New York Times,
February 25, 2003.
[26] Clive Thompson. “Spooked: Using Darknets to Foil the
NSA.” Wired, November 2013.
[27] “Get the Best Route, Every Day, with Real-Time Help
from Other Drivers.” Waze, Inc., June 17, 2013.
www.waze.com.
[28] Kickstarter (Web site). Accessed July 5, 2023.
www.kickstarter.com.
[29] Jimmy Yap. “Power Up!” Internet Magazine, February
2003.
[30] David Barboza. “Ogre to Slay? Outsource It to China.”
New York Times, December 9, 2005.
[31] Carlos Hernández. “The Gold Game: Farming Virtual
Money to Fight a Real-Life Crisis.” Caracas Chronicles,
September 21, 2017. www.caracaschronicles.com.
[32] “Experience Smart Home Awesomation.” Revolv, June
14, 2013. revolv.com.
[33] “Returns Filed, Taxes Collected & Refunds Issued.”
Internal Revenue Service (Web site), April 14, 2023.
www.irs.gov.
[34] “Global Online Gambling Market Report 2023:
Increasing Availability of High-Speed Internet Drives
Growth - ResearchAndMarkets.com.” Business Wire,
April 19, 2023. www.businesswire.com.
[35] Kiva (Web site). Accessed March 20, 2018.
www.kiva.org.
[36] “Cryptocurrencies: What Are They?” Charles Schwab
(Web site), June 13, 2022.
https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/cryptocurrencieswhat-are-they.
[37] Andy Greenberg. “Crypto Currency.” Forbes, April 20,
2011.
5
[38] Katharina Buchholz. “These Are the Countries Where
Cryptocurrency Use Is Most Common.” World
Economic Form (Web site), February 18, 2021.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/howcommon-is-cryptocurrency/.
[39] Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels. “Proofs of Work and
Bread Pudding Protocols (Extended Abstract).” In B.
Preneel, editor. Secure Information Networks: IFIP—
The International Federal for Information Processing,
vol. 23. Springer, Boster, MA.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35568-9_18.
[40] Jake Frankenfield. “Bitcoin Mining.” Investopedia
(Web site), April 26, 2023.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoinmining.asp.
[41] “Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index.” Digiconimist
(Web site). Accessed July 24, 2023.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption.
[42] Ouyang Shijia. “China to Tighten Virtual Currency
Mining Regulation.” China Daily, November 16, 2021.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202111/16/WS6193513ba310
[43] E. Napoletano. “Proof of Stake Explained.” Forbes
Advisor, February 16, 2023.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/proo
of-stake/.
[44] “What Is Proof of Stake?” McKinsey & Company,
January 3, 2023. https://www.mckinsey.com/featuredinsights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is- proof-of-stake.
[45] “Ethereum Energy Consumption Index.” Digiconimist
(Web site), Accessed July 24, 2023.
https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption.
[46] “Processing 24,000 Visa Transactions per Second: How
It’s Done.” Unibul’s Money Blog (Web site), Accessed
July 24, 2023.
https://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/processing24000-visa- transactions-per-second-how-its-done/.
[47] Ethan Wolff-Mann. “‘Only Good for Drug Dealers’:
More Nobel Prize Winners Snub Bitcoin.”
Yahoo!Finance, April 27, 2018.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/good-drug-dealersnobel-prize-winners- snub-bitcoin-184903784.html.
[48] Emma Newbery. “5 Cryptocurrencies That Have Failed
—and Why.” The Ascent, August 13, 2021.
https://www.fool.com/theascent/cryptocurrency/articles/5-cryptocurrencies-thathave-failed-and-why/.
[49] Kalley Huang. “Why Did FTX Collapse? Here’s What
to Know.” New York Times, November 18, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/technology/ftxbinance-crypto-explained.html.
[50] “51% Attacks.” Digital Currency Initiative,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Accessed July
24, 2023. https://dci.mit.edu/51-attacks.
[51] Bloomberg. “China Says All Cryptocurrency
Transactions Are Illegal.” TIME, September 24, 2021.
https://time.com/6101328/china-outlawcryptocurrency/.
[52] Tolu Oguniesi and Stephanie Busari. “Seven Ways
Mobile Phones Have Changed Lives in Africa.” CNN,
September 12, 2012. www.cnn.com.
[53] S. Dixon. “Twitter - Statistics & Facts.” Statistica (Web
site), March 21, 2023. www.statistica.com.
6
[54] Chris Chase. “Germany’s World Cup Rout of Brazil
Was the Most Tweeted Event in History.” USA Today,
July 9, 2014. ftw.usatoday.com.
[55] Claire Cain Miller. “Mom-and-Pop Operators Turn to
Social Media.” New York Times, July 23, 2009.
[56] Clay Shirky. “The Political Power of Social Media.”
Foreign Affairs, January/February 2011.
[57] Philip N. Howard. “The Arab Spring’s Cascading
Effects.” Pacific Standard, February 23, 2011.
www.psmag.com.
[58] “Region in Turmoil.” Al Jazeera. Accessed August 8,
2011. blogs.aljazeera.net/twitter-dashboard.
[59] William Saletan. “Springtime for Twitter.” Slate, July
18, 2011. www.slate.com.
[60] Malcolm Gladwell. “Small Change: Why the
Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” New Yorker,
October 4, 2011.
[61] Penagiotis Takis Metaxas and Eni Mustafaraj. “From
Obscurity to Prominence in Minutes: Political Speech
and Real-Time Search.” In Web Science Conference
2010. Raleigh, NC, April 26–27, 2010.
[62] “How George Floyd Died, and What Happened Next.”
New York Times, July 29, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd.html.
[63] Rachel Treisman. “Darnella Frazier, Teen Who Filed
Floyd’s Murder, Praised for Making Verdict Possible.”
National Public Radio, April 21, 2021.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-ofgeorge- floyd/2021/04/21/989480867/darnella-frazierteen-who-filmed-floyds- murder-praised-for-makingverdict-possib.
[64] Larry Buchanan, Quoctrung Bui, and Jugal K. Patel.
“Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in
U.S. History.” New York Times, July 3, 2020.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/georgefloyd-protests-crowd-size.html.
[65] Alana Wise, Camila Domonoske, and Rachel Treisman.
“Where It Stands: Election Hinges on Key States, Final
Results May Take a While.” NPR, November 3, 2020.
Updated November 4, 2020.
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/03/931042936/bidensecures-early-electoral- vote-lead-but-swing-statecrown-jewels-still-in-pl.
[66] Dan Barry and Sheera Frenkel. “‘Be There. Will Be
Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date.” New York
Times, January 6, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitolmob-trump-supporters.html.
[67] Jane Lytvynenko and Molly Hensley-Clancy. “The
Rioters Who Took Over the Capitol Have Been
Planning Online in the Open for Weeks.”
BuzzFeed.News, January 6, 2021.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/trumprioters-planned-online.
[68] Maggie Haberman. “Trump Told Crowd ‘You Will
Never Take Back Our Country with Weakness.’” New
York Times, January 6, 2021. Updated January 15,
2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/trumpspeech-capitol.html.
7
[69] Ryan Lucas. “Where the Jan. 6 Insurrection
Investigation Stands, One Year Later.” NPR, January
6, 2022.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/06/1070736018/jan-6anniversary-investigation-cases-defendants-justice.
[70] Michael Kunzelman. “Capitol Rioters’ Social Media
Posts Influencing Sentencing.” AP News, December 11,
2021. https://apnews.com/article/media-prisons-social-
media-capitol-siege- sentencing0a60a821ce19635b70681faf86e6526e.
[71] Mathew Ingram. “How Google and Facebook Have
Taken Over the Digital Ad Industry.” Fortune, January
3, 2017. fortune.com.
[72] Daisuke Wakabayashi and Mike Isaac. “In Race
Against Fake News, Google and Facebook Stroll to the
Starting Line.” New York Times, January 25, 2017.
[73] United States of America v. Internet Research Agency et
al. United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. Criminal No. 18 U.S.C. SS 2, 371, 1349,
1028A. February 16, 2018.
[74] Case Newton. “Russia’s Election Posts Reached 126
Million People, Facebook Will Tell Congress.” The
Verge, October 30, 2017.
[75] Richard Gunther, Eric C. Nisbet, and Paul Beck.
“Trump May Owe His 2016 Victory to ‘Fake News,’
New Study Suggests.” The Conversation, February 15,
2018. theconversation.com.
[76] Hunt Alcott and Matthew Gentzkow. “Social Media
and Fake News in the 2016 Election.” Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 31(2): 211–236, Spring 2017.
web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf.
[77] Anamitra Deb, Stacy Donohue, and Tom Glaisyer. “Is
Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” The Omidyar
Group, October 1, 2017.
[78] Elisa Shearer and Jeffrey Gottfried. “News Use Across
Social Media Platforms 2017.” Pew Research Center,
September 7, 2017. www.journalism.org.
[79] Cass Sunstein. Republic.com. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, 2001.
[80] Dan Kennedy. “Print Is Dying, Digital Is No Savior:
The Long, Ugly Decline of the Newspaper Business
Continues Apace.” WGBH News. January 26, 2016.
news.wgbh.org.
[81] Pew Research Center. “State of the News Media 2015.”
April 2015. www.pewresearch.org.
[82] Christine Haughney. “New York Times Company Sells
Boston Globe.” New York Times, August 3, 2013.
[83] Robert G. Kaiser. “The Bad News About the News.”
The Brookings Essay, October 16, 2014.
csweb.brookings.edu.
[84] Thomas Jefferson. Letter to Edward Carrington,
January 16, 1787.
[85] Elaine C. Kamarck and Ashley Gabriele. “The News
Today: 7 Trends in Old and New Media.” Center for
Effective Public Management, Brookings, November
2015. www.brookings.edu.
[86] Eason Jordan. “News We Kept to Ourselves.” New
York Times, April 11, 2003.
8
[87] “About Filtering.” OpenNet Initiative, August 1, 2007.
opennet.net/about-filtering.
[88] “North Korea: Internet Usage, Broadband and
Telecommunications Reports.” Internet World Stats,
January 15, 2023. www.internetworldstats.com.
[89] “Freedom on the Net 2017: Saudi Arabia.” Freedom
House. Accessed May 7, 2018.
freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/saudiarabia.
[90] Rebekah Heacock. “China Shuts Down Internet in
Xinjiang Region after Riots.” OpenNet Initiative, July
6, 2009. opennet.org.
[91] Asher Moses. “Censoring Mobiles and the Net: How
the West Is Clamping Down.” Sydney Morning Herald,
August 15, 2011. www.smh.com.au.
[92] “Internet Filtering in China.” OpenNet Initiative, June
15, 2009. opennet.net.
[93] “Freedom on the Net 2017: China.” Freedom House.
Accessed May 7, 2018.
freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2017/china.
[94] “IOC Agrees to Internet Blocking at the Games.” New
York Times, July 30, 2008.
[95] Immanuel Kant. “What Is Enlightenment?” In
Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Library of
Liberal Arts, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997.
[96] John Stuart Mill. “On Liberty.” In On Liberty and
Utilitarianism. Bantam Books, New York, NY, 1993.
[97] Edward G. Hudon. Freedom of Speech and Press in
America. Public Affairs Press, Washington, DC, 1963.
[98] Francis Canavan. Freedom of Expression: Purpose as
Limit. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC, 1984.
[99] Cass R. Sunstein. Democracy and the Problem of Free
Speech. Free Press, New York, NY, 1993.
[100] George Carlin. “Filthy Words.” On Occupation: Foole,
Atlantic Records, 1973.
[101] Supreme Court of the United States. Federal
Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation et
al., 438 US 726 (1978).
[102] “Parent- Controlled Filtering Software.” Irvine Unified
School District, Orange County, California. Accessed
October 5, 2013. www.iusd.org.
[103] Associated Press. “Justices Uphold Use of Internet
Filters in Public Libraries.” NYTimes.com, June 23,
2003.
[104] Jeffrey Kosseff. “Libraries Should Bar Web Porn, Court
Rules.” Oregonian (Portland, OR), June 24, 2003.
[105] James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 4th
ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA, 2003.
[106] John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition, p.
187. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1999.
[107] Lorenne Clark. “Sexual Equality and the Problem of an
Adequate Moral Theory: The Poverty of Liberalism.” In
Contemporary Moral Issues. McGraw-Hill Ryerson,
Toronto, ON, 1997.
9
[108] Langdon Winner. “Electronically Implanted ‘Values.’”
Technology Review, 100(2), February/March 1997.
[109] Doug Johnson. “Internet Filters: Censorship by Any
Other Name?” Emergency Librarian, 25(5), May/June
1998.
[110] “Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey: Cyberbullying,
Sexting, and Parental Controls.” Cox Communications,
May 2009.
[111] Michele Ybarra. “How Many Teens Are Actually
Sexting? Why Teen Sexting Rates Are Overreported in
the Media.” Psychology Today, January 19, 2015.
www.psychologytoday.com.
[112] Mike Celizic. “Her Teen Committed Suicide over
‘Sexting.’” TodayShow.com, March 6, 2009.
www.msnbc.msn.com.
[113] Kim Zetter. “‘Sexting’ Hysteria Falsely Brands
Educator as Child Pornographer.” Wired, April 3,
2009. www.wired.com.
[114] Martin Dula. “Sexting: The Convergence of Two
Revolutions.” Pop Culture History (blog), June 25,
2009. www.greathistory.com.
[115] Justin W. Patchin. “The Status of Sexting Laws Across
the United States.” Cyberbullying Research Center
(Web site). https://cyberbullying.org/the-status-ofsexting-laws-across-the-united- states.
[116] Dorothy E. Denning. Information Warfare and
Security, p. 241. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 1999.
[117] Javelin. “Identity Fraud Hits All Time High with 16.7
Million U.S. Victims in 2017, According to New Javelin
Strategy & Research Study.” February 6, 2018.
www.javelinstrategy.com/press-release/identity-fraudhits-all-time- high-167-million-us-victims-2017according-new-javelin.
[118] Javelin Strategy & Research. “2009 Identity Fraud
Survey Report: Consumer Version.” February 2009.
www.javelinstrategy.com.
[119] Steve Weisman. “Why College Students Are at High
Risk of Identity Theft.” FTPress, October 3, 2013.
www.ftpress.com.
[120] David McGuire. “Bush Signs Identity Theft Bill.”
WashingtonPost.com, July 15, 2004.
[121] Myles Anderson. “Local Consumer Review Survey
2014.” July 1, 2014. www.brightlocal.com.
[122] Logan Kugler. “Keeping Online Reviews Honest.”
Communications of the ACM, Vol 57(11): 20–23,
November 2014.
[123] Judy Woodruff. “Spotting the Fakes Among the FiveStar Reviews.” PBS NewsHour, January 19, 2015.
9:30. video.pbs.org.
[124] Craig Smith. “26 Important Kik Messenger Statistics
and Facts (January 2018).” DMR, March 31, 2018.
expandedramblings.com.
[125] Steve Jefferson and Emma Koch. “Police Issue Warning
About Child Predators Using Kik App.” NBC33 News,
August 22, 2013. www.21alive.com.
0
[126] Dave Spencer. “Police: Kik App Used by Sexual
Predator to Lure West Michigan Teen to Home.”
Fox17 News, January 14, 2014. fox17online.com.
[127] Howard Koplowitz. “Whisper App Rape: Ronald
Peterson III Arrested for Allegedly Raping 12-Year-Old
Washington Girl He Met through Secrets App.”
International Business Times, October 22, 2013.
www.ibtimes.com.
[128] Colleen Curry. “Underage Sex Sting Nabs 40 Would-Be
Pedophiles.” 20/20, January 18, 2012.
abcnews.go.com.
[129] Phil Perry. “Lincolnton PD Nabs 17 in Child Predator
Sting Operation.” Lincoln Times-News, May 22, 2015.
www.lincolntimesnews.com.
[130] Mark Boyle. “Galveston Task Force Agents Arrest
Child Sexual Predators in Sting Operation.”
Click2Houston (Web site). Accessed June 22, 2015.
www.click2houston.com.
[131] Noah Pransky. “Officers Accused of Bending Rules on
Sex Sting Arrests.” USA Today, August 8, 2014.
www.usatoday.com.
[132] Tiffany Hsu and Sapna Maheshwari. “The Titanic
Truthers of TikTok.” New York Times., June 16, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/business/titanictiktok-misinformation.html.
[133] Andy Baio. “Finding the Star Wars Kid.” Waxy.org
(blog), May 13, 2003. waxy.org.
[134] Tu Thanh Ha. “Parents File Lawsuit over Star Wars
Video.” Globe and Mail, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
July 23, 2003.
[135] “Star Wars Kid Is Top Viral Video.” BBC News,
November 27, 2006. www.bbc.co.uk.
[136] Steve Pokin. “‘MySpace’ Hoax Ends with Suicide of
Dardenne Prairie Teen.” Suburban Journals, November
11, 2007. suburbanjournals.stltoday.com.
[137] “Parents Want Jail Time for MySpace Hoax Mom.”
ABC News, November 29, 2007. abcnews.go.com.
[138] Kim Zetter. “Government’s Star Witness Stumbles:
MySpace Hoax Was Her Idea, Not Drew’s.” Wired,
November 20, 2008. www.wired.com.
[139] “Missouri Begins Prosecuting Under Cyberbullying
Law.” Fox News, December 20, 2008.
www.foxnews.com.
[140] Kim Zetter. “Lori Drew Not Guilty of Felonies in
Landmark Cyberbullying Trial.” Wired, November 26,
2008. www.wired.com.
[141] Kim Zetter. “Judge Acquits Lori Drew in Cyberbullying
Case, Overrules Jury.” Wired, July 2, 2009.
www.wired.com.
[142] Congressional Research Service. “H. R. 1966: Megan
Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (Summary).” April
2, 2009. www.govtrack.us.
[143] “revenge porn” (entry). Collins English Dictionary.
www.collinsdictionary.com.
[144] “Exposed Women Confront Website Owner: ‘What Is
Your Motive?’” Anderson, November 21, 2011. 1:28.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAcXjjD3nYg.
[145] Debbie L. Sklar. “It’s 2.5 Years in Fed Prison for
‘Revenge Porn’ Website King.” My News LA,
December 2, 2015. mynewsla.com.
1
[146] “‘Revenge Porn’ Conviction Is a First Under California
Law.” LA Times, December 4, 2014.
www.latimes.com.
[147] Abby Ohlheiser. “Reddit’s New Privacy Policy Bans
Sharing Nude Images Without Consent.” Washington
Post, February 24, 2015. www.washingtonpost.com.
[148] “The Twitter Rules.” Twitter (Web site). Accessed July
12, 2015. support.twitter.com/entries/18311.
[149] Amit Singhal. “‘Revenge Porn’ and Search.” June 19,
2015. googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com.
[150] Jacky Lynne A. Oiga. “Is Technology Driving You
Crazy?” Mania Bulletin, August 20, 2013.
www.mb.com.ph.
[151] Susan Weinschenk. “100 Things You Should Know
About People: #8—Dopamine Makes You Addicted to
Seeking Information.” What Makes Them Click:
Applying Psychology to Understand How People
Think, Work, and Relate (blog), November 7, 2009.
www.whatmakesthemclick.net.
[152] Carolyn Gregoire. “Our Digital Device Addiction Is
Causing ‘A National Attention Deficit.’” Huffington
Post, October 7, 2014. www.huffingtonpost.com.
[153] Jerald J. Block. “Issues for DSM-V: Internet
Addiction.” American Journal of Psychiatry, March
2008. psychiatryonline.org.
[154] American Psychiatric Association. “DSM-5 Proposed
Revisions Include New Category of Addiction and
Related Disorders; New Category of Behavioral
Addictions Also Proposed” (press release). February 10,
2010.
[155] B. N. Kim. “From Internet to ‘Family-Net’: Internet
Addict vs. Digital Leader.” 2007 International
Symposium on the Counseling and Treatment of Youth
Internet Addiction, Seoul, Korea, 2007.
[156] Y. H. Choi. “Advancement of IT and Seriousness of
Youth Internet Addiction.” 2007 International
Symposium on the Counseling and Treatment of Youth
Internet Addiction, Seoul, Korea, 2007.
[157] D. H. Ahn. “Korean Policy on Treatment and
Rehabilitation for Adolescents’ Internet Addiction.”
2007 International Symposium on the Counseling and
Treatment of Youth Internet Addiction, Seoul, Korea,
2007.
[158] Melia Robinson. “Korea’s Internet Addiction Crisis Is
Getting Worse, as Teens Spend Up to 88 Hours a Week
Gaming.” Business Insider, March 25, 2015.
www.businessinsider.com.
[159] Chris Buckley. “China Tightens Limits for Young
Online Gamers and Bans School Night Play.” New
York Times, August 30, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/30/business/media/chinaonline-games.html.
[160] Stanton Peele. The Meaning of Addiction: An
Unconventional View. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
1998.
[161] Kimberly S. Young. “Internet Addiction: Symptoms,
Evaluation, and Treatment.” In L. VandeCreek and T.
L. Jackson editors. Innovations in Clinical Practice, vol.
17. Professional Resource Press, Sarasota, FL, 1999.
2
[162] Jeffrey Reiman. Critical Moral Liberalism: Theory and
Practice. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham,
MD, 1997.
[163] Immanuel Kant. Lectures on Ethics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 2001.
[164] Mark Griffiths. “Does Internet and Computer
‘Addiction’ Exist? Some Case Study Evidence.”
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(2), 2000.
[165] “What Names Are Allowed on Facebook?” Facebook
(Web site). Accessed May 26, 2018.
www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576.
[166] ICT Staff. “Facebook Name Police: Native American
Names Aren’t ‘Authentic’ Enough.” Indian Country
Today, February 13, 2015.
indiancountrymedianetwork.com.
[167] John Del Signore. “NJ Student Suspended for ‘Trolling’
on YouTube, Facebook.” Gothamist (blog), January
16, 2013. gothamist.com.
[168] Matt Richtel. “Devices Enforce Silence of Cellphones,
Illegally.” New York Times, November 4, 2007.
www.nytimes.com.
[169] US Department of State. “Internet Freedom.” Fact
sheet, February 15, 2011. www.state.gov.
[170] “Protesters Angry About Police Shooting Shut Down
S.F. Subway Stop.” CNN, July 12, 2011.
www.cnn.com.
[171] “S.F. Subway System Admits Cutting Cellphone Service
to Stop Planned Protest.” CNN, August 13, 2011.
news.blocks.cnn.com.
Chapter 4
Intellectual
Property
3
4.1 Introduction
AFTER JIMMY FALLON INVITED ALLISON RAE ONTO
THE TONIGHT show to demonstrate eight popular TikTok
dances, social media erupted with protests. Why? Because the
show did not recognize or provide any compensation to the
choreographers of the dances, most of whom were Black
people. Fallon responded to the criticism by inviting the
creators of the dances onto The Tonight Show the following
week to talk with him and perform their dances [1, 2].
At a Bowling for Soup concert, the band made up a song
onstage. According to singer Jaret Reddick, “That thing was
on YouTube before I even got back home from the show”
[3]. Do entertainers have the right to control who sees and
hears a performance of their music?
DALL- E 2 is an AI system that generates realistic images
based on user prompts. The system gained its abilities by
being trained on 650 million images [4]. Should artists and
photographers receive some compensation for creating the
images used to train DALL-E 2?
Over 100 million Netflix subscribers worldwide were sharing
their passwords with people outside their households. In
2022 Netflix began cracking down on password sharing in
Argentina, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala,
and Honduras, making out-of-household users get their own
accounts. In 2023 Netflix extended its effort to Canada, New
Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United States. Netflix
subscribers had the option of adding an extra member
outside their household—for an additional monthly charge,
of course [5].
As a society, we benefit from access to high-quality television
shows, music, movies, computer programs, and other
products of the human intellect. These products are
efficiently distributed using the modern information
technology infrastructure. However, the same infrastructure
also makes it easier for people to gain access to these
products without paying for them. When this happens,
producers of intellectual property do not receive all the
payments the law says they are entitled to. The legal system
has responded by giving more rights to the creators of
intellectual property. Are these changes in the best interests of
our society, or are politicians catering to special interest
groups?
4
In this chapter we discuss how information technology is
affecting our notions of intellectual property. We consider
what makes intellectual property different from tangible
property and how governments have created a variety of
mechanisms to guarantee intellectual property rights. We
examine what has been considered “fair use” of intellectual
property created by others, and how new copy protection
technologies are eroding the notions of fair use. Meanwhile,
peer-to-peer networks are making it easier than ever for
consumers to get access to music and movies without
purchasing them, putting pressure on companies selling these
products to make obtaining a legal copy at least as easy as
obtaining an illegal copy. We also explore the evolution of
intellectual property protection for computer software and
the rise of the open-source movement, which advocates the
distribution of source code to programs. Finally, we take a
look at one organization’s efforts to make it easier for artists,
musicians, and writers to use the Internet as a vehicle for
stimulating creativity and enhancing collaboration.
4.2 Intellectual
Property Rights
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization,
intellectual property “refers to creations of the mind:
inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names
and images used in commerce” [6]. Examples of intellectual
property include essays, poems, novels, plays, movies, songs,
drawings, paintings, photographs, architectural designs,
industrial designs, inventions, chemical formulas, and
computer programs.
It is important to distinguish between intellectual property
and its physical manifestation in some medium. If a poet
composes a new poem, for example, the poem itself is the
intellectual property, not the piece of paper on which the
poem is printed.
In most of the world there is a widely accepted notion that
people have the right to own property. Does this right extend
to intellectual property as well? To answer this question, we
need to examine the philosophical justification for a natural
right to property.
4.2.1 Property Rights
The English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) developed
an influential theory of property rights. In The Second
Treatise of Government, Locke makes the following case for
a natural right to property. First, people have a right to
property in their own person. Nobody has a right to the
person of anybody else. Second, people have a right to their
own labor. The work that people perform should be to their
own benefit. Third, people have a right to those things that
they have removed from Nature through their own labor [7].
For example, suppose you are living in a village, in the
middle of woods that are held in common. One day you walk
into the woods, chop down a tree, saw it into logs, and split
the logs into firewood (Figure 4.1). Before you cut down the
tree, everyone had a common right to it. By the time you
have finished splitting the logs, you have mixed your labor
with the wood, and at that point it has become your
property. Whether you burn the wood in your stove, sell it to
someone else, pile it up for the winter, or give it away, the
choice of what to do with the wood is yours.
F‍igure 4.1


According to John Locke people have a natural right to the things they

Locke uses the same reasoning to explain how a person can
gain the right to a piece of land. Taking a parcel out of the
state of Nature by clearing the trees, tilling the soil, and

planting and harvesting crops gives people who performed
these labors the right to call the land their property.
5
To Locke, this definition of property makes sense as long as
two conditions hold. First, no person claims more property
than they can use. In the case of harvesting a natural
resource, it is wrong for someone to take so much that some
of it is wasted. For example, people should not appropriate
more land than they can tend. Second, when people remove
something from the common state in order to make it their
own property, there is still plenty left over for others to claim
through their labor. If the woods are full of trees, I can chop
a tree into firewood without denying you or anyone else the
opportunity to do the same thing.
Locke’s description of a natural right to property is most
useful at explaining how virtually unlimited resources are
initially appropriated. It is not as useful in situations where
there are limited resources left for appropriation.
4.2.2 Extending the
Argument to Intellectual
Property
Is there a natural right to intellectual property?
We can try to demonstrate that such a right exists by
extending Locke’s theory of property rights to intellectual
property. However, since Locke was talking about the
ownership of physical objects and we are talking about the
ownership of creative expressions, we must resort to an
analogy. We’ll compare writing a play to making a belt
buckle [8]. In order to make a belt buckle, a person must
mine ore, smelt it down, and cast it. To write a play, a
playwright “mines” words from the English language,
“smelts” them into stirring prose, and “casts” them into a
finished play.
Attempting to treat intellectual property the same as ordinary
property leads to certain paradoxes, as Michael Scanlan has
observed [8]. We consider two of Scanlan’s scenarios
illustrating problems that arise when we extend Locke’s
natural-rights argument to intellectual property.
166
Scenario A, Act 1
After a day of rehearsals at the Globe Theatre,
William Shakespeare decides to have supper at a
pub across the street. The pub is full of gossip about
royal intrigue in Denmark. After his second pint of
beer, Shakespeare is visited by the muse, and in an
astonishing burst of energy, he writes Hamlet in one
fell swoop.
If we apply Locke’s theory of property to this situation,
clearly Shakespeare has the right to own Hamlet. He mixed
his labor with the raw resources of the English language and
produced a play. Remember, we’re not talking about the
piece of paper upon which the words of the play are written.
We’re talking about the sequence of words comprising the
play. The paper is simply a way of conveying them.
What should Shakespeare get from his ownership of Hamlet?
Here are two ideas (you can probably think of more): He
should have the right to decide who will perform the play. He
should have the right to require others who are performing
the play to pay him a fee.
So far, so good. But let’s hear the end of the story.
Scenario A, Act 2
On the very same night, Ben Jonson, at a pub on the
opposite side of London, hears the same gossip, is
struck by the same muse, and writes Hamlet—
exactly the same play!
Ben Jonson has mixed his intellectual labor with the English
language to produce a play. According to Locke’s theory of
natural rights to property, he ought to own it. Is it possible
for both Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare to own the
same play (Figure 4.2)? No, not as we have defined
ownership rights. It is impossible for both of them to have
the exclusive right to decide who will perform the play. Both
of them cannot have an exclusive claim to royalties collected
when Hamlet is performed. We’ve uncovered a paradox: two
people labored independently and produced only a single
artifact.
F‍igure 4.2
Suppose both Ben Jonson and William Shakespeare simultaneously write
down Hamlet. Who owns it?
(Ben Jonson, Walker Art Library/Alamy Stock Photo; Shakespeare, Classic
Image/Alamy Stock Photo)
We ended up with this paradox because our analogy is
imperfect. If two people go to the same iron mine, dig ore,
smelt it, and cast it into belt buckles, there are two belt
buckles, one for each person. Even if the belt buckles look
identical, they are distinct, and we can give each person
ownership of one of them. This is not the case with Hamlet.
Even though Jonson and Shakespeare worked independently,
there is only one Hamlet: the sequence of words that
constitute the play. Whether we give one person complete
ownership or divide the ownership among the two men, both
cannot get full ownership of the play, which is what they
ought to have if the analogy were perfect. Therefore, the
uniqueness of intellectual properties is the first way in which
they differ from physical objects.
A second paradox has to do with the copying of intellectual
property. Consider a slightly different version of our story.
167
Scenario B
One evening William Shakespeare stays up all night
in a pub writing Hamlet while Ben Jonson goes to a
party. The next morning Shakespeare returns to the
Globe Theatre, but he carelessly leaves a copy of
Hamlet in the pub. Jonson stops by for breakfast,
sees the manuscript, transcribes it, and walks out
the door with a copy of the play in his possession,
leaving the original copy where it was.
Did Jonson steal Hamlet? Shakespeare still has his physical
copy of the play, but he has lost exclusive control over who
will read, perform, or hear the play. If you want to call this
stealing, then stealing intellectual property is quite different
from stealing a physical object. When you steal someone’s
car, they can’t drive it anymore. When you steal someone’s
joke, both of you can tell it.
Certainly, any creator of a piece of intellectual property has
the right to keep his ideas a secret. After Shakespeare wrote
Hamlet, he could have locked it in a trunk to prevent others
from seeing it. Ben Jonson would not have had the right to
break into Shakespeare’s trunk to get access to the play.
Hence we can argue that there is a natural right to keep an
idea confidential. Unfortunately, this is a weak right because
Shakespeare cannot perform the play while he is keeping it
confidential. He must give up the confidentiality in order to
put his creation to good use.
We began this section with the following question: Is there a
natural right to intellectual property? We have found no right
other than the weak right to keep an idea confidential. In our
quest for stronger rights, we have uncovered two important
differences between tangible property and intellectual
property. First, every intellectual property is one-of-a-kind.
Second, copying a piece of intellectual property is different
from stealing a physical object.
8
4.2.3 Benefits of
Intellectual Property
Protection
New ideas in the form of inventions and artistic works can
improve the quality of life for the members of a society. Some
people are altruistic and will gladly share their creative
energies. For example, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
invented many useful items, including an improved wood
stove, the lightning rod, the odometer, and bifocals. He did
not patent any of them. Franklin said, “As we enjoy great
advantages from the invention of others, we should be glad
of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously” [9, p. 28].
However, most people find the allure of money to be a strong
inducement for laboring long hours in the hope of creating
something useful. So even if there are no natural rights to
intellectual property, a society may choose to grant
intellectual property rights to people because of the beneficial
consequences.
The authors of the Constitution of the United States
recognized the benefits society reaps by encouraging
creativity. Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution gives
Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries.”
If a person has the right to control the distribution and use of
a piece of intellectual property, there are many opportunities
for that person to make money. For example, suppose you
build a better mousetrap and the government gives you
ownership of this design. You may choose to manufacture
the mousetrap yourself. Anyone who wants the better
mousetrap must buy it from you, because no other mousetrap
manufacturer has the right to copy your design. Alternatively,
you may choose to license your design to other
manufacturers, who will pay you for the right to build
mousetraps according to your design. It is also possible for
you to be rewarded for your creativity without the new
device ever reaching the public. Suppose you sell an exclusive
license for your better mousetrap to the company that
dominates the mousetrap market. The company chooses not
to manufacture the new mousetrap because—for whatever
reason—it can make more money selling the existing
technology. In this situation you and the company benefit,
but society is deprived access to the new, improved
technology.
4.2.4 Limits to Intellectual
Property Protection
Society benefits the most when inventions are in the public
domain and anyone can take advantage of them. Going back
to the mousetrap example, we would like everyone in society
who needs a mousetrap to get the best possible trap. If
someone invents a superior mousetrap, the maximum benefit
would result if all mousetrap manufacturers were able to use
the better design. On the other hand, if the inventor of the
superior mousetrap did not have any expectation of profiting
from her new design, they might not have bothered to invent
it. Hence there is a tension between the need to reward the
creators of intellectual property by giving them exclusive
rights to their ideas and the need to disseminate these ideas as
widely as possible.
The way Congress has traditionally addressed this tension is
through a compromise. It has granted authors and inventors
exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries but only for
a limited period of time. (Note: Rights to a piece of
intellectual property produced by an employee in the normal
course of their duties belong to the employer.) At the end of
that time period, the intellectual property enters the public
domain. While creators have control over the distribution of
their properties, use of the properties is more expensive, and
the creators are rewarded. After properties enter the public
domain, using them becomes less expensive, and everyone
has the opportunity to produce derivative works from them.
9
Consider a community orchestra that wishes to perform a
piece of classical music. It may purchase a piece of music
from the public domain for far less money than it cost simply
to rent the same piece of music while it was still protected by
copyright (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1


Once a piece of classical music enters the public domain, it may be
purchased for much less than it cost simply to rent the same piece of
music for two performances when it was still under copyright protection.
These prices assume the orchestra has an annual budget of $150,000 or
less [10].
(Table from “Letter to The Honorable Senator Spencer Abraham,” by Randolph
P. Luck from Luck’s Music Library. Copyright © 1996 by Randolph P. Luck.
Reprinted with permission.)
The question is, what is a reasonable length of time to grant 
authors and inventors exclusive rights to their creative
works? Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer [11], Kembrew
McLeod [12], and Lawrence Lessig [13] all cited “Happy
Birthday to You” as evidence that copyright protections are
excessive. “Happy Birthday to You,” based on a tune from
1893, is one of the most popular songs in the world, but for
more than 50 years, it was almost never heard on television.
That’s because more than a century after “Happy Birthday”
was first sung, music publisher Warner/Chappell owned the
copyright to the song, and television networks had to pay
licensing fees to Warner/Chappell to air it. In the early 21st
century, Warner/Chappell was collecting about $2 million in
licensing income each year from public performances of
“Happy Birthday to You” [14].
As it turns out, the focus on “Happy Birthday to You” led to
a surprising outcome. In a meticulously researched article,
George Washington University law professor Robert Brauneis
concluded that the song was “almost certainly no longer
under copyright, due to a lack of evidence about who wrote
the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a
proper renewal application” [15]. After the publication of
Brauneis’s article, the production company of documentary
filmmaker Jennifer Nelson filed a class action complaint
asking the court to “declare invalid the copyright that
defendant Warner/Chappell claims to own to the world’s
most popular song, Happy Birthday to You” [16]. In 2016
the US District Court for the Central District of California
declared “Happy Birthday to You” to be in the public
domain. Warner/Chappell agreed to pay up to $14 million to
settle claims of a class who had paid licensing fees as far back
as 1949 [17].
0
4.3 Protecting
Intellectual Property
While the US Constitution gives Congress the right to grant
authors and inventors exclusive rights to their creations, it
does not elaborate on how these rights will be protected.
Today there are four different ways in which individuals and
organizations protect their intellectual property: trade secrets,
trademarks/service marks, patents, and copyrights.
4.3.1 Trade Secrets
A trade secret is a confidential piece of intellectual property
that provides a company with a competitive advantage.
Examples of trade secrets include formulas, processes,
proprietary designs, strategic plans, customer lists, and other
collections of information. The right of a company to protect
its trade secrets is widely recognized by governments around
the world. In order to maintain its rights to a trade secret, a
company must take active measures to keep it from being
discovered. For example, companies typically require
employees with access to a trade secret to execute a
confidentiality agreement.
A famous trade secret is the formula for Coca-Cola syrup.
The formula is locked inside a vault at the World of CocaCola in Atlanta, Georgia. Only a few people within the
company know the entire formula, and they have signed
nondisclosure agreements. The task of making the syrup is
divided among different groups of employees. Each group
makes only one part of the final mixture, so that nobody in
these groups learns the complete recipe.
An advantage of trade secrets is that they do not expire. A
company never has to disclose a trade secret. Coca-Cola has
kept its formula secret for more than 100 years.
The value of trade secrets is in their confidentiality. Hence
trade secrets are not an appropriate way to protect many
forms of intellectual property. For example, it makes no sense
for a company to make a movie a trade secret, because a
company can only profit from a movie by allowing it to be
viewed, which makes it no longer confidential. On the other
hand, it is appropriate for a company to make the idea for a
movie a trade secret. Art Buchwald pitched Paramount
Pictures a story called King for a Day, about an African
prince who visits the United States. After the studio produced
the movie Coming to America, starring Eddie Murphy,
Buchwald successfully sued Paramount for breach of
contract, because he had made the studio sign a
confidentiality agreement before he gave them the plot [18].
While it is illegal to steal a trade secret, there are other ways
in which confidentiality may be broken. Reverse engineering
is one way in which a competing firm can legally gain access
to information contained in a trade secret. If another
company can purchase a can of Coca-Cola and figure out the
formula, it is free to manufacture a soft drink that looks and
tastes just like Coke. However, it wouldn't be able to sell its
soft drink as Coca-Cola or Coke, because those names are
trademarked, as explained in the next section.
1
Another way in which a competing firm can gain access to
information contained in another company’s trade secret is
by hiring its employees. While a firm can require its
employees to sign confidentiality agreements, it cannot erase
the memories of an employee who starts working for a
competing firm. Hence some “leakage” of confidential
information may be inevitable when employees move from
one company to another.
4.3.2 Trademarks and
Service Marks
A trademark is a word, symbol, picture, sound, or color used
by a business to identify goods. A service mark is a mark
identifying a service. Hereafter, we will use the word
“trademark” to mean either a trademark or a service mark.
By granting a trademark, a government gives a company the
right to use it and the right to prevent other companies from
using it. Through the use of a trademark, a company can
establish a “brand name.” Society benefits from branding
because branding allows consumers to have more confidence
in the quality of the products and services they purchase [19].
In the United States, trademarks are registered through the
US Patent and Trademark Office. Trademarks must be
chosen carefully, because not every mark can be registered,
and even marks that are registered may be impossible to
protect. The US Patent and Trademark Office simply registers
trademarks; defending them is up to the trademark’s owner.
Obtaining a trademark requires choosing the mark,
identifying the goods and/or services that will be identified by
the mark, searching the US Patent and Trademark Office
database to determine if a similar mark has already been
registered for comparable goods and/or services, and
demonstrating that the mark is being used or about to be
used in commerce. Firms often retain trademark attorneys to
help them navigate these steps [20].
When a company is the first to market a distinctive product,
it runs the risk that its brand name will become a common
noun used to describe any similar product. When this
happens, the company may lose its right to exclusive use of
the brand name. Some trademarks that have become
common nouns are yo-yo, aspirin, escalator, thermos, and
brassiere.
In order to protect their trademarks, companies strive to
ensure their marks are used as adjectives rather than nouns or
verbs. One way they do this is through advertising (Figure
4.3). Kimberly-Clark’s advertisements refer to “Kleenex
brand facial tissue.” Remember Johnson & Johnson’s jingle,
“I am stuck on Band-Aid brand ’cause Band-Aid’s stuck on
me”? Another way companies protect their trademarks is by
contacting those who are misusing them. For example, Adobe
has responded to Web posts about “photoshopping images”
by posting this follow-up message: “The Photoshop
trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a
noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized
and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang
term” [21].
F‍igure 4.3
Xerox Corporation ran this advertisement as part of its campaign to protect
its trademark.
(Courtesy of Xerox Corporation.)
4.3.3 Patents
A patent is how the US government provides intellectual
property protection for a limited period of time to creators of
machines, systems, and other inventions. A patent is quite
different from a trade secret because a patent is a public
document that provides a detailed description of the
invention. The owner of the patent can prevent others from
making, using, or selling the invention for the lifetime of the
patent, which is currently 20 years. After the patent expires,
anyone has the right to make use of its ideas.
2
Obtaining a patent is a lengthy, complicated, and expensive
process. In the United States, the inventor must go through
several steps before filing an application with the US Patent
and Trademark Office. The first step is to determine if the
invention is patentable. You cannot file a patent application
for an invention that is already being used or that has already
been described in a publication or another patent application.
Even if the invention is different from an invention that has
already been described, patented, or used, the patent
application may still be refused if the differences are deemed
to be obvious to a person familiar with the technical area of
the invention. Finally, the invention must serve a useful
purpose and be designed so that it can accomplish that
purpose. Because the patent application process requires
specialized knowledge, the US Patent and Trademark Office
recommends that those seeking patents get expert help from a
registered patent attorney or patent agent [22].
Bell Telephone Company
Alexander Graham Bell’s patent on the telephone enabled the
Bell Telephone Company to create a monopoly on telephone
services in the United States. A key to the early success of the
company was its decision to lease, rather than sell, telephones
to customers. When Bell’s original patents on the telephone
expired in 1894, other companies were free to make
telephones, and about 6,000 phone companies sprang up
across the United States [23].
The Bell Telephone Company evolved into the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), which became
one of the world’s largest corporations. In 1974 the US
Department of Justice sued AT&T for antitrust violations.
The case was settled in 1982, and in 1984 seven regional
telephone companies, nicknamed “the Baby Bells,” took over
AT&T’s local phone services. AT&T continued to
manufacture equipment and offer long-distance telephone
service [23].
3
Polaroid v. Kodak
Dr. Edwin Land invented “instant” photography. The
company he founded, Polaroid Corporation, had many
patents protecting the invention of film that developed in 60
seconds. Polaroid did not license these patents to other firms,
and for many years it was the only company to sell cameras
and film allowing photographs to be developed in a minute.
When Kodak introduced its first instant camera in 1976,
Polaroid sued Kodak for infringement of 10 of its patents. In
1985 a federal district court ruled that Kodak had infringed
on seven of Polaroid’s patents, and a federal appeals court
upheld the ruling in 1986 [24]. Kodak paid Polaroid a $925
million settlement and got out of the instant photography
business [25].
Cleartype
Sometimes companies see an advantage in licensing their
inventions. For example, Microsoft invented a software
technology called ClearType that improves the clarity of text
displayed on liquid crystal displays (LCDs), screens often
used in smartphones, tablets, laptops, and computer
monitors. The ClearType technology is protected by 10 US
patents. In 2003 Microsoft announced it would begin
licensing more of its inventions to other companies, and Agfa
Monotype Corp. in Belgium became the first company to
license ClearType [26, 27]. The royalty rate was $1 per unit
for personal digital assistants, $2 per unit for personal
computers, and $3 per unit for tablets. The total amount of
revenue Microsoft expected to make from the technology was
not enough to have a significant impact on the company’s
balance sheet, leading some observers to conclude Microsoft
was opening up its patent portfolio to other companies to
reduce pressure from antitrust regulators in the United States
and the European Union [26].
4.3.4 Copyrights
A copyright is how the US government provides authors with
certain rights to original works that they have written. The
owner of a copyright has five principal rights:
1. The right to reproduce the copyrighted work
2. The right to distribute copies of the work to the public
3. The right to display copies of the work in public
4. The right to perform the work in public
5. The right to produce new works derived from the
copyrighted work
Copyright owners have the right to authorize others to
exercise these five rights with respect to their works. Here are
two examples. The owner of a copyright to a play may sell a
license to a high-school drama club that wishes to perform it.
After a radio station broadcasts a song, it must pay the
songwriter(s) and the composer(s) through a performance
rights organization such as ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC.
Copyright owners also have the right to prevent others from
infringing on their rights to control the reproduction,
distribution, display, performance, and production of works
derived from their copyrighted work.
4
Several important industries in the United States, including
the motion picture, music, software, and book publishing
industries, rely on copyright law for protection. “Copyright
industries” account for nearly 8 percent of the US gross
domestic product, with over $1.8 trillion in sales. Nearly 10
million US citizens work in these industries, which are
growing at a much faster rate than the rest of the US
economy. With foreign sales and exports of $230 billion,
copyright industries were the leading export sector in the
United States in 2022 [28].
In this section we examine court cases and legislation that
have helped define the limits of copyright in the United
States.
Gershwin Publishing v. Columbia Artists
Columbia Artists Management, Inc. (CAMI) managed
concert artists, and it sponsored hundreds of local, nonprofit
community concert associations that arranged concert series
featuring CAMI artists. CAMI helped the associations
prepare budgets, select artists, and sell tickets. CAMI printed
the programs and sold them to the community concert
associations. In addition, all musicians performing at these
concerts paid CAMI a portion of their fees.
On January 9, 1965, the CAMI-sponsored Port Washington
(NY) Community Concert Association put on a concert that
included Gershwin’s “Bess, You Is My Woman Now”
without obtaining copyright clearance from Gershwin
Publishing Corporation. The American Society of
Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) sued CAMI
for infringement of copyright.
CAMI argued that it was not responsible for the copyright
infringement, since the concert was put on by the Port
Washington Community Concert Association. However, the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York
ruled that CAMI could be held liable because it was aware
that the community concert associations it supported were
not obtaining proper copyright clearances. In 1971 the US
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the ruling of
the district court [29].
Davey Jones Locker
Richard Kenadek ran a computer bulletin board system (BBS)
called Davey Jones Locker. Subscribers paid $99 a year for
access to the BBS, which contained copies of more than 200
commercial programs. In 1994 Kenadek was indicted for
infringing on the copyrights of the owners of the software.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months’ home
confinement and two years’ probation [30].
No Electronic Theft Act
Another incident in 1994 led to further legislation protecting
copyrights. David LaMacchia, an MIT student, posted
copyrighted software on a public bulletin board he created on
a university computer. According to prosecutors, bulletinboard users downloaded more than a million dollars’ worth
of software in less than two months. However, the
prosecutors were forced to drop charges against LaMacchia
because he had made the programs available for free. Since
he had not profited from his actions, he had not violated
copyright law. To close this legal loophole, Congress passed
the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, which made it a
criminal offense simply to reproduce or distribute more than
a thousand dollars’ worth of copyrighted material in a sixmonth period.
5
Copyright Creep
As a result of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act
of 1998, works created and published before January 1,
1978, are protected for 95 years. Works created on or after
January 1, 1978, are protected for the author’s lifetime plus
70 years after the author’s death. If the work is a work made
for hire, the length of protection is 95 years from the date of
publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever
is less.
According to Siva Vaidhyanathan, “in the early republic and
the first century of American legal history, copyright was a
Madisonian compromise, a necessary evil, a limited, artificial
monopoly, not to be granted or expanded lightly” [31, p.
24]. Over time, however, Congress has gradually increased
both the term of copyright protection and the kind of
intellectual properties that are protected by copyright (Figure
4.4). One reason has been the desire to have international
copyright agreements. In order to complete these agreements,
Congress has had to reconcile American copyright law with
European law, which in general has had much stronger
protections for the producers of intellectual property [31].
Another reason for “copyright creep” has been the
introduction of new technologies, such as photography,
audio recording, and video recording.
F‍igure 4.4
Since the first Copyright Act was passed in 1790, both the length of
copyright protection and the kinds of intellectual property that can be
copyrighted have grown dramatically.
For example, since 1831 music publishers have been able to
copyright sheet music and collect royalties from musicians
performing this music in public. In 1899 Melville Clark
introduced the Apollo player piano, which played songs
recorded on rolls of heavy paper. Apollo manufactured and
sold piano rolls of copyrighted songs. White-Smith Music
Company sued Apollo for infringing on its copyrights. In
1908 the Supreme Court ruled that Apollo had not infringed
on White-Smith Music’s copyrights. The court suggested that
Congress ought to change copyright law if it wanted owners
of copyrights to have control over recordings such as piano
rolls and phonograph records. Congress responded by
revising the Copyright Act in 1909. The new copyright law
recognized that player piano rolls and phonograph records
could be copyrighted.
6
Some people believe the expansion of the scope of copyright
protection has tilted the balance of private versus public
rights too far toward the copyright holders. They say it is no
coincidence that copyright terms were extended just before
Mickey Mouse was to enter the public domain. The Walt
Disney Corporation lobbied Congress to pass the Sonny
Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998,
protecting its profits derived from Mickey Mouse, Donald
Duck, and its other famous characters [32]. Some critics
suggest that since Walt Disney made a great deal of money
on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Pinocchio,
The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and
The Jungle Book, all based on stories taken from the public
domain, it’s only fair that at some point Walt Disney
characters become part of the public domain, available for
others to use in new creative works [33].
Eric Eldred, who digitizes old books and makes them freely
available over the Web, led a group of petitioners who
challenged the CTEA. They argued that the US Constitution
gives Congress the power to grant exclusive rights to authors
for “limited times,” and that the writers of the Constitution
expected copyright durations to be short. By extending the
terms of existing copyrights 11 times in 40 years, they said,
Congress had exceeded its constitutional power [34].
The government and groups representing the entertainment
industry, including the Walt Disney Co., the Motion Picture
Association of America, and the Recording Industry
Association of America, argued that Congress does have the
constitutional authority to extend the terms of existing
copyrights [35].
In a 7–2 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
government and the entertainment industry, stating that the
petitioners did not demonstrate how the CTEA had crossed
“a constitutionally significant threshold.” In the opinion of
the Court, “Those earlier Acts did not create perpetual
copyrights, and neither does the CTEA” [36].
Sure enough, the US Congress did not extend the length of
copyrights further, and in 2024 Disney’s Steamboat
Willie entered the public domain, along with the original, ratlike Mickey Mouse character appearing in that short film.
Disney continued to hold a trademark on the more modern
version of Mickey Mouse as a brand identifier.
4.3.5 Non-fungible Tokens
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a digital asset stored on a
blockchain and connected with a unique digital asset, such as
art, music, or virtual real estate. By contrast, Bitcoins and
other cryptocurrencies are fungible or interchangeable with
each other.
NFTs can be sold and traded. Typically, the owner of an
NFT is licensed to use the asset but does not own the
copyright to the asset. For example, in 2021 Christie’s
auction house sold for $69 million an NFT representing a
collage of 5,000 images from the digital artist Beeple [37].
Meanwhile, any Internet user could view the images in the
collage for free.
7
Some have likened owning an NFT to owning an
autographed print. Others referred to the NFT phenomenon
as a speculative bubble [38]. Prices of NFTs soared between
2019 and 2021, then crashed by the summer of 2022.
4.3.6 Case Study: The
Database Guru
Rajiv worked for five years as a software engineer at Felicity
Software, a company that sells database systems to
consumers and small businesses. During his time at Felicity,
Rajiv implemented some clever software optimizations that
significantly improved the performance of the database
systems sold by Felicity. The company treated the
optimizations as trade secrets. It labeled the software as
confidential information and took measures to restrict access
to the source code to Rajiv and a few other software
engineers who helped Rajiv implement and test the system.
On his first day with Felicity, Rajiv had signed an employee
confidentiality and proprietary rights agreement. Signing this
agreement was a condition of his employment. In this
agreement Rajiv had indicated that he understood and
acknowledged the following:
1. He would have access to confidential, secret, and
proprietary information related to Felicity’s business.
2. Felicity placed “great competitive importance and
commercial value” on its ability to reserve confidential
information for its exclusive use.
3. Confidential information he developed would be
covered by this agreement.
4. He would not “directly or indirectly disclose, publish,
communicate or make available” confidential
information to anyone outside of the company.
5. His obligations under the agreement would “continue
during and after his employment” by Felicity [39].
After completing the database project at Felicity, Rajiv began
looking for the opportunity to join a software start-up. With
a good reputation in the tight-knit local tech community and
strong references from coworkers and managers who praised
his talent, work ethic, honesty, and teamwork skills, Rajiv
quickly found employment at Unrelated.com, a start-up
company in a nearby office park.
Unrelated.com plans to support people doing genealogical
research. It is developing a proprietary database system that
will be used to store genealogical information. Unrelated.com
has no plans to sell the database software. Instead, its income
will be derived from the monthly fee users pay in order to
access the company’s database through the Web or a mobile
app. The sales and marketing team estimates that within
three years Unrelated.com could reach a steady state of
50,000 subscribers paying $10 a month, as long as the system
performs well. Up to 20 percent of the customers may be
using the system during peak periods, which means in order
to reach a steady state of 50,000 customers, the database
system must be capable of quickly responding to queries from
10,000 users accessing the system simultaneously. If the
performance of the system falls short of this goal, fewer
people will subscribe to the service. For example, a system
that can provide good service to only 5,000 concurrent users
will support only 25,000 subscriptions.
Rajiv’s title at Unrelated.com is vice president of software,
and he earns a salary of $150,000 supervising several teams
of software developers. One of these teams is responsible for
implementing the genealogical database system and
optimizing its performance. As the project progresses, Rajiv
realizes that some of the technical solutions proposed by the
members of his team are not as good as the solutions he
developed for Felicity’s database product. The team’s
preliminary software implementation is unlikely to result in a
database system with satisfactory performance when it is
being accessed by more than about 5,000 users. In Rajiv’s
judgment, significant optimizations are needed before the
system is ready to deploy if Unrelated.com is to reach its goal
of 50,000 monthly subscribers.
8
Rajiv believes he has two viable alternatives. The first option
is to follow a “clean-room” strategy. He would isolate
himself from the team’s work product, but he would provide
the team with publicly available information on database
optimization strategies—in other words, the books, journal
articles, and conference papers he benefited from when he
implemented the database system optimizations at Felicity.
Based on his expertise, Rajiv would also provide the team
with realistic performance targets that the various
components of the database system should be able to meet.
The second option is to become personally involved in
making the necessary performance improvements. Rajiv
believes that if he asks the right questions, in fairly short
order he can get the team to rediscover the optimizations he
developed for Felicity’s database product without actually
telling them how to do it.
Which option should Rajiv take?
Kantian Evaluations
The first option is innocuous. Rajiv is sharing his expertise
with the development team without disclosing any
confidential information. He is not violating the employee
confidentiality and proprietary rights agreement he signed
with Felicity. The moral rule, “You should share your
expertise with others,” can be universalized without
contradiction. From a Kantian perspective, this option is
morally right.
In the second option, Rajiv’s will is to get the team to know
what he knows without directly communicating the
information. Presumably, if he asks questions in a general
way, akin to a college professor posing questions for a
homework assignment, the members of the team will be able
to discover ways of improving the performance of the
database software. However, by taking this course of action,
Rajiv runs the risk of asking the team leading questions—
more specifically, propositions disguised as questions that
require simply a yes or no answer. Communicating
confidential information, even phrased as questions, is
prohibited by the confidentiality agreement Rajiv signed with
Felicity. In this agreement Rajiv stated that his obligation not
to reveal confidential information outside the company
would continue after his employment with Felicity ended.
Breaking this contract is equivalent to breaking a promise,
and as we saw in Section 2.6.1, it is wrong to break a
promise. From a Kantian point of view, this option is morally
acceptable only if Rajiv can get through the entire line of
questioning without asking a leading question. If anywhere in
the process he asks a leading question that reveals
optimizations he developed at Felicity, this option would be
morally wrong. Given the complexity of the system to be
implemented, Rajiv’s desire to help the team discover the
optimizations, and the fact that he may feel pressed for time
because he is helping the team in addition to his normal job
responsibilities, there is a good chance he would be unable to
avoid asking leading questions. From a Kantian perspective,
this option is morally dubious.
9
Social-Contract-Theory Evaluations
Both evaluations from the perspective of social contract
theory are similar to the Kantian evaluations. In the first
option, Rajiv is helping the team without violating any
agreements. The action is morally right.
The morality of the second option hinges on whether Rajiv
can avoid communicating confidential information he
acquired while at Felicity. As a condition of his employment
at Felicity, Rajiv signed a confidentiality and proprietary
rights agreement, and there is no overriding moral concern in
this situation that would justify his breaking this agreement.
If Rajiv can engage with the team and avoid asking leading
questions, his actions would be morally acceptable, but if he
asks any leading questions, that would be wrong.
Act-Utilitarian Evaluations
The affected parties are Rajiv and the employees and
investors of Unrelated.com. We will quantify the
consequences for Rajiv by considering how each option
affects his future earnings for the next five years. We will
quantify the consequences for Unrelated.com by considering
the effects of two different factors on the company’s balance
sheet over the next five years: the lost income due to the
delay in the release of the product, and the expected costs (if
any) associated with potential litigation.
In the first option, Rajiv sets up a “clean-room” environment
for the database team to develop its optimizations. Rajiv
performs a valuable service to Unrelated.com by providing
the team with relevant information in the form of books,
journal papers, and conference articles, as well as realistic
performance targets, that enable the team to double the
performance of the database system. As a result, Rajiv can
reasonably expect a good raise, perhaps 10 percent, or
$15,000. Over the next five years, the cumulative effect of
the raise is $75,000.
Using his substantial experience and good judgment, Rajiv
predicts that using the clean-room strategy to redesign the
database will delay the release of the product by six months.
The marketing team expects the company to reach its steady
state of customers after only three years. That means a sixmonth delay in the release of the product will cost the
company six months’ revenue from its steady state of 50,000
customers over the next five years. The total loss to the
company will be 50,000 customers times $10/month per
customer times 6 months, or $3,000,000. Rajiv will not be
working with the team developing the software, so there is no
risk that he would communicate confidential information he
acquired while working at Felicity. Therefore, there is no risk
of litigation from Felicity, and the financial impact related to
potential litigation is $0.
In the second option, Rajiv works with the team, asking the
members open-ended questions that enable them to discover
for themselves the database optimizations. The project is still
delayed, but with Rajiv’s help, he believes the team should be
able to come up with the solutions more rapidly than in the
previous option, and the release of the product should be
delayed by only three months. The total loss of income to the
company over the next five years is 50,000 customers times
$10/month per customer times 3 months, or $1,500,000.
If Rajiv chooses the second option and works directly with
the team, there is a chance he may become impatient and ask
the team leading questions in order to guide them to the right
solution, creating the possibility of legal action by Felicity.
That would only happen if Rajiv actually divulged
confidential information and Felicity discovered what he has
done and the legal department at Felicity chose to litigate
against a small start-up company that was not a direct
competitor. Using his experience and best judgment, Rajiv
estimates the probability of these events occurring as 50
percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent, respectively. Altogether,
the probability of litigation is
. If
Felicity did litigate, it could seek $5 million in damages from
Unrelated.com, based on similar cases in the industry. The
expected loss to Unrelated.com from legal action is
$5,000,000 times 0.0625, or $312,500.
0
Next Rajiv calculates the consequences of the second option
on his earnings over the next five years. In the unlikely event
Unrelated.com must pay Felicity $5 million, he must assume
he will be fired. The expected loss to his income is the
probability of being fired (6.25 percent) times 5 years times
$150,000/year, or $46,875. It is much more likely
(93.75 percent probability) that there will be no litigation. In
that case, by demonstrating his technical prowess in the area
of database design, and helping the team double the
performance of the database system with only a three-month
slip in the schedule, Rajiv’s raise should be even larger than
in the first option, where he receives a 10 percent raise. A
15 percent raise, or $22,500, yields $112,500 in additional
salary over the next five years. Summing both terms, the
expected consequence of the second option for Rajiv is equal
to
.
The anticipated consequences of the two courses of action are
summarized in Table 4.2. Which option is preferable? As you
can see, the overall financial consequences of both options
are negative because in both cases the release of the product
is delayed, resulting in a significant loss of revenue to
Unrelated.com. However, because option 2 results in a
smaller loss, Rajiv chooses it. Interestingly, Rajiv has chosen
the option that has a smaller expected benefit to him
personally.
Table 4.2


Virtue-Ethics Evaluations
Rajiv holds a position of responsibility at Unrelated.com. He
is responsible for recruiting, developing, and retaining highquality employees who can create value for the company.

Through his supervision of the software development teams,
he must do all he can to ensure that they produce systems
that work well and contribute to the company’s financial
success. As an officer of the company, he must avoid doing
anything that puts its future in jeopardy.
1
Setting up a “clean-room” development environment to help
the team create a database system with higher performance is
consistent with his responsibilities as a manager and
company officer.
In the second option, Rajiv would become personally
engaged with the team, asking the questions that would help
the programmers to quickly identify crucial database
optimizations. Rajiv would have to spend extra time at work,
because he would also have to keep up with his other
responsibilities. The willingness to work hard for the benefit
of their employees and their company is a characteristic of
good managers. Sharing expertise is another laudable
characteristic of good managers. However, in this option
Rajiv is running the risk of putting himself in a situation
where he gets impatient, reveals an optimization he
developed at Felicity, and violates the confidentiality
agreement he signed. That would be dishonest, and
dishonesty is not a characteristic of a good employee or a
good manager.
The prudent choice for Rajiv is option 1.
Conclusion
From the perspectives of Kantianism, social contract theory,
and virtue ethics, the right thing for Rajiv to do is to set up a
clean-room development environment for his software team
and supply the team with publicly available information
about database optimizations. Our act-utilitarian analysis has
reached the conclusion that the other option is preferable;
Rajiv should engage the members of the software
development team and ask them open-ended questions until
they rediscover the optimizations he discovered while
working for Felicity. Note, however, that a more risk-averse
act-utilitarian analysis would have assumed a higher
probability of litigation from Felicity. Even a 30 percent risk
of Unrelated.com having to pay Felicity a $5 million
settlement would have tilted the balance toward option 1.
4.4 Fair Use
The right given to a copyright owner to reproduce a work is
a limited right. Under some circumstances, called fair use, it
is legal to reproduce a copyrighted work without the
permission of the copyright holder. Examples of fair use
include citing short excerpts from copyrighted works for the
purpose of teaching, scholarship, research, criticism,
commentary, and news reporting.
The United States Copyright Act does not precisely list the
kinds of copying that are fair use. Instead, what is considered
to be fair use has been determined by the judicial system. The
courts have relied on Section 107 of the Copyright Act,
which lists four factors that need to be considered [40]:
1. What is the purpose and character of the use?
The purposes of criticism, commentary, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research are more likely to
be permissible than a commercial purpose.
When judging the character of the use, the most
important consideration is the extent to which the
author has transformed the original copyrighted work.
The more the author has added new expression or
meaning to the work, the more likely the work will be
judged to be fair use [41].
2
2. What is the nature of the work being copied?
Use of nonfiction is more likely to be permissible than
use of fiction. Published works are preferred over
unpublished works.
3. How much of the copyrighted work is being used?
Brief excerpts are more likely to be permissible than
entire chapters.
4. How will this use affect the market for the copyrighted
work?
Use of out-of-print material is more likely to be
permissible than use of a readily available work. A
spontaneously chosen selection is better than an
assigned reading in the course syllabus.
Let’s consider two scenarios in which copyrighted works are
duplicated and determine if they made fair use of the
material. These scenarios are closely modeled after situations
presented on the Web site of CETUS, the Consortium for
Educational Technology in University Systems
(www.cetus.org).
Fair Use Example #1
A professor puts a few journal articles on reserve in
the library and makes them assigned reading for the
class. Some students in the class complain that they
cannot get access to the articles because other
students always seem to have them checked out.
The professor scans them and posts them on their
Web site. The professor gives the students in the
class the password they need to access the articles.
The first factor to consider is the purpose of the use. In this
case the purpose is strictly educational. This factor weighs in
favor of fair use.
The second factor is the nature of the work being copied. The
journal articles are nonfiction. Again this weighs in favor of
fair use.
The third factor is the amount of material being copied. The
fact that the professor is copying entire articles rather than
brief excerpts weighs against a ruling of fair use.
The fourth factor is the effect the copying will have on the
market for journal sales. If the journal issues containing these
articles are no longer for sale, then the professor’s actions
cannot affect the market. The professor took care to prevent
people outside the class from accessing the articles. Overall,
this factor appears to weigh in favor of fair use.
Three of the four factors weigh in favor of fair use. The
professor’s actions probably constitute fair use of the
copyrighted material.
Fair Use Example #2
An art professor takes photographs of a number of
paintings reproduced in a book about Renaissance
artists. They incorporate the photos into
PowerPoint lectures for their class.
3
The first factor to consider is the purpose of the copying. The
professor’s purpose is strictly educational. Hence the first
factor weighs in favor of fair use.
The second factor is the type of material being copied. The
material is art. Hence this factor weighs against a ruling of
fair use.
The third factor is the amount of material copied. In this case
the professor is displaying copies of the paintings in their
entirety. Fair use almost never allows a work to be copied in
its entirety. Note that even if the original painting is in the
public domain, the photograph of the painting appearing in
the art book is probably copyrighted.
The final factor is the effect the copying will have on the
market. The determination of this factor would depend on
how many images the professor took from any one book and
whether the publisher is in the business of selling slides of
individual images appearing in its book.
Overall, this professor’s actions are less likely to be
considered fair use than the actions of the professor in the
first example.
4.4.1 Sony v. Universal City
Studios
In 1975 Sony introduced its Betamax system, the first
consumer VCR. People used these systems to record
television shows for viewing later, a practice called time
shifting. Some customers recorded entire movies onto
videotape.
A year later, Universal City Studios and Walt Disney
Productions sued Sony, saying it was responsible for
copyright infringements performed by those who had
purchased VCRs. The movie studios sought monetary
damages from Sony and an injunction against the
manufacturing and marketing of VCRs. The legal battle went
all the way to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
evaluated the case in light of the four fair-use factors.
The first factor is the intended purpose of the copying. Since
the purpose is private, not commercial, time shifting should
be seen as fair use with respect to the first factor.
The second factor is the nature of the copied work.
Consumers who are time shifting are copying creative work.
This would tend to weigh against a ruling of fair use.
The third factor is the amount of material copied. Since a
consumer copies the entire work, this weighs against a ruling
of fair use.
The final factor is the effect time shifting will have on the
market for the work. The Court determined that the studios
were unable to demonstrate that time shifting had eroded the
commercial value of their copyrights. The movie studios
receive large fees from television stations in return for
allowing their movies to be broadcast. Television stations can
pay these large fees to the studios because they receive
income from advertisers. Advertising rates depend on the size
of the audience; the larger the audience, the more a television
station can charge an advertiser to broadcast a commercial.
Time shifting allows people who would not ordinarily be able
to watch a show to view it later. Hence it can be argued that
VCRs actually increase the size of the audience, and since
audience size determines the fees studios receive to have their
movies broadcast on television, it is not at all clear whether
the copying of these programs harms the studios.
The Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that time
shifting television programs is a fair use of the copyrighted
materials. It said that the private, noncommercial home use
of recordings of broadcast material was a legitimate fair use
of copyrighted works (Figure 4.5). Importantly, the Court
also noted that the Sony Betamax VCR could be used to copy
both copyrighted and noncopyrighted material, and that
Sony should not be held accountable if some of the people
who buy a VCR choose to use it to infringe on copyrights
[42].
4
F‍igure 4.5
The Supreme Court ruled that videotaping television broadcasts for private
viewing at a later time is fair use of the copyrighted material. This practice
is called time shifting. Using videotaped material for a commercial purpose
is not considered fair use.
4.4.2 Audio Home
Recording Act of 1992
The Audio Home Recording Act represents a compromise
between the desires of the recording industry, the electronics
industry, and consumers. The Act protects the right of
consumers to make copies of analog or digital recordings for
personal, noncommercial use. For example, a consumer may
copy a recording to put in another music player, to give to
another family member, or to use as a backup.
To reduce the problem of unauthorized copying, the Audio
Home Recording Act requires manufacturers of digital audio
recorders to incorporate the Serial Copyright Management
System (SCMS). The SCMS allows a consumer to make a
digital copy from the original recording, but it prevents
someone from making a copy of the copy.
To compensate artists and recording companies for the loss
of sales due to copying, the Audio Home Recording Act
requires a royalty to be paid on the sale of all digital audiorecording devices and blank digital audio-recording media.
The royalties are divided among songwriters, music
publishers, musicians, and recording companies, based on the
popularity of their music. As it turns out, these royalty
payments have never been a significant source of income for
any of these groups.
4.4.3 RIAA v. Diamond
Multimedia
A compression algorithm reduces the number of bits needed
to store a picture or sound. The most popular compression
algorithm for music is MP3, which was developed by a team
of European scientists. An MP3 music file is typically less
than 10 percent the size of the original file, and it is difficult
to hear the difference between the original and the
compressed versions. The availability of MP3 encoders and
decoders in the mid-1990s helped speed the development of
portable music players.
5
Diamond Multimedia Systems introduced the Rio MP3
portable music player in 1998. About the size of a pack of
cigarettes, the Rio stored an hour of digitized music. The
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) asked for
an injunction preventing Diamond Multimedia from
manufacturing and distributing the Rio. The RIAA alleged
that the Rio did not meet the requirements of the Audio
Home Recording Act of 1992 because it did not employ the
Serial Copyright Management System to prevent
unauthorized copying of copyrighted material.
The US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, upheld the ruling of
a lower court that the Rio was not a digital audio-recording
device as defined by the Audio Home Recording Act. It
denied the injunction on these technical grounds. In addition,
the Court affirmed that space shifting, or copying a recording
in order to make it portable, is fair use and entirely consistent
with copyright law (Figure 4.6).
F‍igure 4.6
Space shifting is the creation of a copy for backup purposes or for use in a
portable device, and it is considered fair use. Making a copy for a friend is
not considered fair use.
4.4.4 Kelly v. Arriba Soft
Leslie Kelly was a photographer who maintained a Web site
containing many of his copyrighted photos. Arriba Soft
Corporation created an Internet-based search engine that
responded to user queries by displaying thumbnail images.
Arriba Soft created the thumbnail images by copying images
from other Web sites. When Kelly discovered that the Arriba
Soft search engine was displaying thumbnail images of his
photographs, he sued Arriba Soft for copyright infringement.
The US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, upheld the ruling of
a lower court that Arriba Soft’s use of the images was a fair
use of the work [43]. Two factors heavily favored Arriba
Soft’s claim of fair use. First, the character of Arriba Soft’s
use of the images was “significantly transformative” [43].
Kelly’s original images were artistic creations designed to
provide the viewer with an aesthetic experience. Arriba Soft’s
use of the thumbnails was to create a searchable index that
would make it easier for people to find images on the
Internet. The thumbnail images had such low resolution that
enlarging them resulted in a blurry image with little aesthetic
appeal. Second, Arriba Soft’s use of Kelly’s images did not
harm the value of the original images or the market for these
images. If anything, the search engine’s display of Kelly’s
images “would guide users to Kelly’s Web site rather than
away from it,” increasing the demand for his photographs
[43].
6
4.4.5 Authors Guild v.
Google
In December 2004, Google announced a plan to scan millions
of books held by Harvard University, the University of
Michigan, the New York Public Library, Oxford University,
and Stanford University, creating a database containing the
words in all of these books [44]. This database is much more
powerful than traditional library card catalogs because it
allows users to search for words or phrases appearing
anywhere in the cataloged books. The system responds to a
user query by returning the books that match the query most
closely. If the book is in the public domain, the user can view
and download a PDF file containing the scanned images of
the book’s pages. If the book is still under copyright, the user
can see a few sentences from the book that show the search
term in context, and the search engine provides links to
libraries holding the book and online bookstores selling the
book.
In September 2005, the Authors Guild filed a lawsuit in the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York,
claiming that “by reproducing for itself a copy of those
works that are not in the public domain, Google is engaging
in massive copyright infringement” [45]. A month later a
group of five major publishers sued Google for copyright
infringement. The publishers claimed that Google was
infringing their rights under the Copyright Act because
Google’s intent was “purely commercial,” and in order to
create its database, Google was systematically copying entire
books still protected by copyright [46]. Google’s defense was
that its book-scanning project should be considered fair use
under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
After a long and complicated legal battle, in November 2013
Judge Denny Chin found in favor of Google and dismissed
the lawsuit. Using the four factors listed in Section 107 of the
Copyright Act as his guide, he explained why he determined
that Google Books was a fair use of copyrighted books:
The first factor concerns the purpose and character of
the use. Chin noted that the purpose of the Google
Books project is to create a massive index from the
words appearing in the books, and the character of
“Google’s use of the copyrighted works is highly
transformative” [47, p. 19]. The index Google has
created is a powerful tool for librarians, scholars, and
researchers. The judge cited the precedent of Kelly v.
Arriba Soft Corporation. Google’s display of small
portions of the text of a book is similar to Arriba Soft’s
display of thumbnail images of photographs. The
Google Books project has also been transformative by
making possible entirely new kinds of research, such as
exploring how the usage of words changes over time.
Chin concluded, “the first factor strongly favors a
finding of fair use” [47, p. 22].
The second factor is the nature of the work being
copied. Most of the books Google is scanning are
nonfiction, and all of the scanned books are published.
These factors “favor a finding of fair use” [47, p. 23].
The third factor has to do with how much of the
copyrighted work is being used. In order to index a
book, Google must scan the entire book. Even though
Google limits the amount of text displayed in response
to a query, this factor “weighs slightly against a finding
of fair use” [47, p. 24].
7
The fourth factor to consider is the effect of Google’s
use of the copyrighted work on the market for that
work. Chin rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the
Google Books project would reduce book sales,
determining that the Google Books project is actually
stimulating book sales by helping people discover
books. The judge concluded the fourth factor “weighs
strongly in favor of a finding of fair use” [47, p. 25].
The Electronic Frontier Foundation praised the ruling, calling
it “a good day for fair use and sane copyright law” [48], but
the plaintiffs did not give up. The Authors Guild appealed the
ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
which unanimously affirmed the judgment in favor of Google
in October 2015 [49]. The Authors Guild then filed a petition
for writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court, but its
petititon was denied in April 2016, leaving intact the decision
of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [50].
4.4.6 Mashups
In music, a mashup is a composition that incorporates
elements taken from preexisting songs. In the simplest form
of a mashup, called A vs. B, an artist overlays the
instrumental track from one song with the vocal track from
another song. An example of an A vs. B mashup is “A Stroke
of Geni-Us” by Freelance Hellraiser, which overlays the
instrumental track from “Hard to Explain” by the Strokes
with Christina Aguilera’s voice track from “Genie in a
Bottle.” In a sophisticated mashup, called an audio collage,
the artist creates a new composition from dozens of audio
fragments. DJ Danger Mouse created an audio collage
consisting of vocal samples from Jay Z’s The Black Album
and instrumental samples from the Beatles’ White Album,
creating completely new songs that he issued as The Grey
Album (naturally).
After Danger Mouse distributed 3,000 promotional copies of
The Grey Album in 2004, he received a cease-and-desist
order from EMI, the publisher owning the copyright to the
Beatles’ works. Danger Mouse complied with the order and
never sold the album, but in an act of civil disobedience
others made copies available over the Internet.
Is a mashup an example of fair use? Courts have not yet
ruled on this issue, but Elina Lae has argued that the answer
should depend on the type of mashup. In Lae’s view, an
audio collage is highly transformative and should receive
protection under the fair-use provision of the Copyright Act.
In contrast, an artist creating an A vs. B mashup is not
creating a transformative work and should be required to
obtain licenses from the owners of the copyrighted sources.
Regardless of whether the artist is creating an audio collage
or an A vs. B, if the purpose of the mashup is “criticism,
satire, or parody,” the mashup should be entitled to fair use
protection, suggests Lae [41].
4.5 Digital Media
CDs and DVDs store sounds and images in digital form.
When information is stored digitally, anyone with the right
equipment can make perfect copies, making copyright
infringement easier.
The increase in the number of people with broadband
Internet connections has stimulated digital copying. The
number of illegal downloads soared when more people
gained broadband access to the Internet [51]. As a result, the
music industry has lost sales. Total revenue from music sales
and licensing in the United States dropped from $14.6 billion
in 1999 to $6.3 billion in 2009 [52].
8
Governments and recording companies have responded to the
threat of illegal copying of copyrighted materials by
introducing new legal and technological restrictions on
copying. Sometimes that makes it impossible for consumers
to make copies even for purposes that are considered fair use,
such as making a backup.
4.5.1 Digital Rights
Management
Digital rights management (DRM) refers to any of a variety
of actions owners of intellectual property may take to protect
their rights. As Christopher May puts it, “All DRM
technologies are aimed at tracking and controlling the use of
content once it has entered the market” [53]. DRM
technologies may be incorporated into a computer’s
operating system, a program, or a piece of hardware.
One approach to DRM is to encrypt the digital content so
that only authorized users can access it. Another approach is
to place a digital mark on the content so that a device
accessing the content can identify the content as copy
protected.
4.5.2 Digital Millennium
Copyright Act
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed by
Congress in 1998, was the first major revision of US
copyright law since 1976. The primary purpose of the
DMCA was to bring the United States into compliance with
international copyright agreements it had signed [40].
Provisions in the DMCA significantly curtail fair use of
copyrighted material. The DMCA makes it illegal for
consumers to circumvent encryption schemes placed on
digital media, and it is illegal to sell (or even discuss online) a
software program designed to circumvent copy controls [54].
Online service providers that misuse copyrighted materials
face severe penalties [54]. That means, for example, a
university that knows students are exchanging MP3 files on
the campus network and does nothing to stop them can be
sued [55].
The DMCA requires Internet radio stations to make royalty
payments to the copyright holders of music they broadcast.
The rates paid by Internet radio stations are set by the
Copyright Royalty Board.
4.5.3 Secure Digital Music
Initiative
The Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) was an effort to
create copy-protected CDs and secure digital music
downloads that would play only on SDMI-compliant devices.
About 200 entertainment and technology companies joined
the consortium, which worked for three years to develop
“digital watermarks” that would make unauthorized copying
of audio files impossible. The SDMI was unsuccessful for
three reasons. First, before any copy-protection technologies
could be put in place, the number of music files being copied
on the Internet mushroomed. Second, some of the sponsors
of the SDMI—consumer electronics companies—started
making a lot of money selling devices that became more
attractive to customers as access to free MP3 files got easier.
Their sales could be hurt by restrictions on copying. Third,
the digital watermarking scheme was cracked [56]. Here’s
how that happened.
9
In September 2000, SDMI issued a “Hack SDMI” challenge.
It released some digitally watermarked audio files and offered
a $10,000 prize to the first person to crack them. Princeton
computer science professor Edward Felten and eight
colleagues picked up the gauntlet. Three weeks later the team
had successfully read the audio files. The team declined to
accept the cash prize. Instead, they wrote a paper describing
how they broke the encryption scheme. They prepared to
present the paper at the Fourth Annual Information Hiding
Workshop at Carnegie Mellon University in April 2001 [57].
At this point, the Recording Industry Association of America
sent Dr. Felten a letter warning him that if he disclosed any
of the information he learned by participating in the
challenge, he and his team could be sued for violating the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act [58]. Fearing litigation, Dr.
Felten agreed to withdraw the paper from the conference.
However, that did not prevent the information from being
leaked. Even before the conference, copies of the research
paper and the letter from the RIAA were placed on a
freedom-of-speech Web site [58]. Four months later Felten’s
group published the paper [59].
4.5.4 Sony BMG Music
Entertainment Rootkit
In the summer and fall of 2005, Sony BMG Music
Entertainment shipped millions of audio CDs with Extended
Copy Protection, a DRM system. Extended Copy Protection
prevented users from ripping audio tracks into MP3 format
or making more than three backup copies of the CD. It also
monitored the user’s listening habits and reported back to
Sony via the Internet. Extended Copy Protection did this by
secretly installing a rootkit on Windows computers when the
CD was played for the first time. A rootkit is a way of hiding
files and processes from users; rootkits are commonly
associated with computer hackers. The installation of the
rootkit also compromised the security of the user’s computer,
making it vulnerable to “Trojan horse” programs (see Section
7.3.8) [60].
A computer expert discovered the Sony rootkit on his
computer and publicized its existence, resulting in a huge
public outcry and a class action lawsuit. Without admitting
any wrongdoing, Sony BMG agreed to do the following [61]:
Cease production of CDs with Extended Copy
Protection
Provide financial incentives to retailers to return unsold
audio CDs with Extended Copy Protection
Make freely available the software patch needed to
uninstall the rootkit
Allow customers to exchange CDs with Extended Copy
Protection for identical CDs with no DRM
Give consumers $7.50 or three free album downloads
for every CD with Extended Copy Protection they
exchange
4.5.5 Criticisms of Digital
Rights Management
The introduction of DRM technologies has been
controversial. Here are some criticisms that have been raised
against DRM.
0
Many experts suggest that any technological “fix” to the
problem of copyright abuse is bound to fail. All prior
attempts to create encryption or anticopying schemes have
been abandoned or circumvented.
Others argue that DRM undermines the well established
principle of fair use. Under DRM, a consumer may not be
able to make a private copy of a DRM-protected work
without making an extra payment, even if they have the right
to do so under traditional fair-use standards. Selena Kim
writes:
In the analogue world, people go ahead and use the work if they
believe themselves entitled to do so. It is only if users are sued for
infringement that they invoke the relevant copyright exceptions as
defence. In a digital world encapsulated by access control and
embedded with copy control, a potential user of a work may have
to ask for permission twice: once to access a work, and again to
copy an excerpt. The exception to copyright is not being put
forward as a defence; it is put forward to show entitlement to use
the work [62, p. 112].
DRM restrictions sometimes prevent libraries from
reformatting materials to make them more accessible to
persons with disabilities. In addition, DRM protections,
unlike copyrights, never expire [63].
Finally, some DRM schemes prevent people from
anonymously accessing content. Microsoft’s Windows Media
Player has an embedded globally unique identifier (GUID).
The Media Player keeps track of all the content the user
views. When the Media Player contacts Microsoft’s central
server to obtain titles, it can upload information about the
user’s viewing habits.
4.5.6 Online Music Stores
Drop Digital Rights
Management
When Apple began selling music through the iTunes Music
Store in 2003, all the songs were protected with a DRM
scheme called FairPlay. FairPlay blocked users from freely
exchanging music they had purchased by preventing songs
from being played on more than five computers or being
copied onto CDs more than seven times. FairPlay had two
other “features” that were strong incentives for consumers to
stick with the Apple brand: music purchased from the iTunes
store couldn’t be played on portable devices other than the
Apple iPod, and DRM-protected music purchased from other
online retailers couldn’t be played on the iPod [64].
Consumers complained about the restrictions associated with
DRM, and eventually music retailers responded. In 2007
EMI announced it would begin offering all its songs without
DRM through the iTunes store for $1.29, 30 cents more than
the previous price [65]. A year later, Amazon became the first
online music store to reach an agreement with all four major
labels to sell music free of DRM restrictions [66]. Apple
followed suit in 2009 with an announcement that it, too, had
reached an agreement with all the major music labels to sell
music without DRM restrictions [67].
4.5.7 Microsoft Xbox One
In June 2013, Microsoft announced that it was creating a
cloud-based gaming experience to coincide with the launch of
Xbox One. In the new environment, people would be able to
play their games from any Xbox One without the disc being
in the tray, and every Xbox One would automatically be kept
current with the latest system and application updates [68].
1
Consumers soon learned about the restrictions accompanying
these benefits, and their reactions were overwhelmingly
negative. Three features of the proposed licensing
arrangement were particularly controversial: a disc owner
would be allowed to share a disc only once, freedom to sell
discs and buy secondhand titles was restricted, and Xbox
consoles would have to check in online every 24 hours to
ensure that the authorized software was up-to-date and that
there was no unauthorized software [69]. In the midst of the
controversy, Amazon ran a Facebook poll to see which new
gaming console consumers were more interested in
purchasing: the Microsoft Xbox One or the Sony PlayStation
4. The PlayStation 4 was capturing 95 percent of the votes
when Amazon decided to shut down the poll early [70].
Microsoft did not waste time changing course. Thanking
consumers for their “assistance in helping us to reshape the
future of Xbox One,” Microsoft’s Don Mattrick announced
that the controversial features of the licensing agreement
were being dropped [71]. In particular, he indicated
consumers would be able to play Xbox One games without
being connected to the Internet, the Xbox One would not
need to connect to the Internet once every 24 hours, and
consumers would be free to lend, rent, or sell their discs. This
reversal also meant that people would no longer have the
ability to play their games from any Xbox One console
without the disc being in the tray.
4.6 Peer-to-Peer
Networks and
Cyberlockers
On the Internet, the term peer-to-peer refers to a transient
network allowing computers running the same networking
program to connect with each other and access files stored on
each other’s hard drives. Peer-to-peer networks stimulate the
exchange of data in three ways. First, they give each user
access to data stored in many other computers. Second, they
support simultaneous file transfers among arbitrary pairs of
computers. Third, they allow users to identify those systems
that will be able to deliver the desired data more rapidly,
perhaps because they have a faster Internet connection or are
fewer routing hops away.
Cyberlockers (also called file-hosting services or cloud
storage services) are Internet-based file-sharing services that
allow users to upload password-protected files. Users can
give other people access to the files they have uploaded by
sharing passwords. People who wish to collaborate on a
project often find sharing large files through cyberlockers
more convenient than sending them back and forth as
attachments to email messages. However, cyberlockers also
make it easy for people to share copyrighted material, such as
songs and movies. In addition, cyberlocker use is much more
difficult for government officials to track than peer-to-peer
file sharing.
4.6.1 RIAA Lawsuits
Against Napster, Grokster,
and Kazaa
Napster, Grokster, and Kazaa were peer-to-peer networks
that facilitated the exchange of music files. Napster used a
central computer to maintain a global index of all files
available for sharing. In contrast, Grokster and Kazaa used a
software technology called FastTrack to distribute the index
of available files among a large number of computers.
2
In December 1999, the RIAA sued Napster for copyright
infringement, asking for damages of $100,000 each time a
Napster user copied a copyrighted song. In June 2000, the
RIAA asked for a preliminary injunction to block Napster
from trading any copyrighted content from major record
labels. In February 2001, a federal appeals court ruled that
Napster must stop its users from trading copyrighted
material. Napster put in place file-filtering software that was
99 percent effective in blocking the transfer of copyrighted
material. In June 2001, a district court judge ruled that unless
Napster could block 100 percent of attempted transfers of
copyrighted material, it must disable file transfers. This court
order effectively killed Napster, which went offline in July
2001 and officially shut down in September 2002 [72, 73,
74]. (The following year Napster reemerged as an online
subscription music service and music store.)
In April 2003, the RIAA warned Grokster and Kazaa users
that they could face legal penalties for swapping files
containing copyrighted music. The message read, in part:
It appears that you are offering copyrighted music to others from
your computer . . . . When you break the law, you risk legal
penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON’T
STEAL MUSIC, either by offering it to others to copy or
downloading it on a “file-sharing” system like this. When you
offer music on these systems, you are not anonymous and you can
easily be identified. [75]
The RIAA identified the IP addresses of the most active
Kazaa supernodes, leading it to the ISPs of users who had
stored large numbers of copyrighted files on their computers.
Under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the
RIAA subpoenaed Verizon, asking it to identify the names of
customers suspected of running these Kazaa supernodes.
Verizon resisted responding to the subpoenas, claiming that
responding to the subpoenas would violate the privacy of its
customers. In June 2003, a judge in Washington, DC, ruled
that Verizon had to release the names of the customers [76].
In September 2003, the RIAA sued 261 individuals for
distributing copyrighted music over the Internet [77]. A
month later the RIAA sent letters to 204 people who had
downloaded at least 1,000 music files, giving them an
opportunity to settle before being sued by the RIAA [78].
In December 2003, the RIAA suffered a setback when the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled
that Verizon did not have to respond to the subpoenas of the
RIAA and identify its customers [79]. Still, there is some
evidence the RIAA lawsuits reduced illegal file swapping
across the Internet. A survey from Com-Score reported
activity on Kazaa declined by 15 percent between November
2002 and November 2003 [80]. The Pew Internet &
American Life Project reported that the percentage of Internet
users who said they download music dropped from 32
percent in October 2002 to 22 percent in January 2005, and
more than half of the January 2005 downloaders said that
they purchased their music from an online service, such as
iTunes. However, the report cautioned that because of the
stigma associated with illegal downloading, fewer people may
have been willing to admit they do it. Interestingly, about
half of music downloaders said they had gotten music from
email, instant messages, or someone else’s MP3 player or
iPod [81].
The RIAA’s campaign to impose severe penalties on file
sharers has been successful in the courtroom, but huge jury
judgments against file sharers have been overruled by judges.
In June 2009, a federal jury in Minnesota ordered Jammie
Thomas-Rasset, a single mother of four, to pay $1.92 million
—$80,000 a song—for violating the copyrights of 24 songs
[82]. (The RIAA accused her of making 1,700 songs available
on Kazaa, but they only tried to prove 24 copyright
infringements.) In July 2011, Judge Michael Davis reduced
the damage award against Thomas-Rasset to $54,000. Judge
Davis called the original award “appalling,” and said it was
“so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to
the offense and obviously unreasonable” [83].
3
Another verdict went the RIAA’s way in July 2009. The
RIAA had accused Joel Tenenbaum of copyright infringement
for using Kazaa to share 31 music files. The jury awarded the
music companies $675,000, or $22,500 per song [84]. In July
2010, Judge Nancy Gertner reduced the jury’s award to
$67,500. In her ruling, Judge Gertner wrote: “There is
substantial evidence indicating that Congress did not
contemplate that the Copyright Act’s broad statutory
damages provision would be applied to college students like
Tenenbaum who file-shared without any pecuniary gain. . . .
There is no question that this reduced award is still severe,
even harsh. It not only adequately compensates the plaintiffs
for the relatively minor harm that Tenenbaum caused them;
it sends a strong message that those who exploit peer-to-peer
networks to unlawfully download and distribute copyrighted
works run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards”
[85, p. 3].
During these trials, the RIAA did not prove that people had
actually downloaded songs from the defendants’ computers.
Instead, they contended that simply making the music files
available to others was a violation of copyright law. In other
words, making it possible for someone to download a music
file from you means you’ve violated copyright law, even if no
one ever does it. In April 2008, a federal court judge in New
York agreed with the position of the RIAA, but judges in
Massachusetts and Arizona reached the opposite conclusion,
holding that simply making music files available for copying
is not copyright infringement [86, 87, 88].
4.6.2 MGM v. Grokster
A group of movie studios, recording companies, music
publishers, and songwriters sued Grokster and StreamCast
for the copyright infringements of their users. The plaintiffs
(henceforth referred to as MGM) sought damages and an
injunction against the defendants.
During the discovery phase of the litigation, the following
facts were revealed:
The defendants’ networks were used to transfer billions
of files every month.
About 90 percent of the files available on Grokster’s
FastTrack network were copyrighted.
Grokster and StreamCast promoted their networks to
investors and potential customers as replacements for
Napster.
An internal StreamCast document revealed that
StreamCast’s executives wanted to have more
copyrighted songs available on their network than on
competing networks.
Grokster sent its users a newsletter touting its ability to
deliver popular copyrighted songs.
Grokster and StreamCast provided technical support to
users who were having difficulty locating or playing
copyrighted content.
4
A US District Court granted Grokster and StreamCast a
summary judgment; that is, it made its decision without a
trial based on the facts and evidence collected. According to
the judge, “The defendants distribute and support software,
the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both
lawful and unlawful ends. Grokster and StreamCast are not
significantly different from companies that sell home video
recorders or copy machines, both of which can be and are
used to infringe copyrights” [89]. The judge referred to Sony
v. Universal City Studios, the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling
on the legality of Sony’s Betamax VCR. MGM appealed to
the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld
the ruling.
After another appeal, the US Supreme Court unanimously
reversed the decision of the lower courts in June 2005. Justice
Souter wrote: “The question is under what circumstances the
distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful
use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties
using the software. We hold that one who distributes a device
with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as
shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to
foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of
infringement by third parties” [90].
The Supreme Court made clear it was not reversing the Sony
Betamax decision. Instead, it ruled that the “safe harbor”
provided to Sony did not apply to Grokster and StreamCast.
The Sony Betamax VCR was primarily used for time-shifting
television shows, which the Court found to be a fair use.
There was no evidence Sony had done anything to increase
sales of its VCRs by promoting illegal uses. Therefore, Sony
could not be found liable simply for selling VCRs.
The situation for Grokster and StreamCast was quite
different. Both companies gave away their software but made
money by streaming advertisements to users. Advertising
rates are higher when the number of users is greater. Hence
both companies wanted to increase their user base. They
realized the way to do this was to make sure their networks
had the content people were interested in downloading. The
opinion notes dryly, “Users seeking Top 40 songs, for
example, or the latest release by Modest Mouse, are certain
to be far more numerous than those seeking a free
Decameron, and Grokster and StreamCast translated that
demand into dollars. . . . The unlawful objective is
unmistakable” [90].
According to the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals erred when it cited Sony v. Universal City Studios.
The more relevant precedent was Gershwin Publishing
Corporation v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc. The
Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals,
suggesting that a summary judgment in favor of MGM
would be in order. Grokster shut down its peer-to-peer
network in November 2005 and paid $50 million to “movie
studios, record labels and music publishers” [91].
4.6.3 BitTorrent
For a computer with a broadband connection to the Internet,
downloading a file from the network is about 10 times faster
than uploading a file to the network. A problem with
FastTrack and some other peer-to-peer networking protocols
is that when one peer computer shares a file with another
peer computer, the file is transferred at the slower upload
speed rather than the faster download speed. To solve the
problem caused by slower uploading speed, Bram Cohen
developed BitTorrent [92].
BitTorrent divides a file into pieces about a quarter-megabyte
in length. Different pieces of a file can be downloaded
simultaneously from different computers, avoiding the
bottleneck that occurs when the entire file is uploaded from a
single computer (Figure 4.7). As soon as a user has a piece of
a file, the user can share this piece with other users. Since
BitTorrent gives a priority for downloads to those users who
allow uploading from their machines, users tend to be
generous. As a result, downloading speeds increase as more
peers get a copy of the file. Put another way, downloading
speeds increase with the popularity of a title.
5
F‍igure 4.7

(a) Broadband Internet connections provide higher speeds for

downloading than for uploading. (b) BitTorrent reduces downloading time
by enabling a computer to download different pieces of a file
simultaneously from many different peers.
With its markedly higher downloading rates, BitTorrent has
made practical the exchange of files hundreds of megabytes
long. People are using BitTorrent to download copies of
computer programs, television shows, and movies. Linspire, a
Linux operating system developer, reduces demand on its
servers (and saves money) by using BitTorrent to distribute
its software [93]. BitTorrent was also the vehicle by which
Revenge of the Sith became available on the Internet before it
appeared in movie theaters [94].
4.6.4 Legal Action Against
the Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay, based in Stockholm, Sweden, is one of the
biggest file-sharing Web sites in the world, with an estimated
25 million users [95]. People use the Pirate Bay to search for
songs, movies, TV shows, or computer programs they can
download for free. These items of intellectual property are
broken into BitTorrent fragments stored in thousands of
different computers scattered across the globe. Established in
2003, the Pirate Bay has been called “the most visible
member of a burgeoning international anti-copyright—or
pro-piracy—movement” [96].
The movie industry pressured the Swedish government to do
something about the Pirate Bay, and in 2006 Swedish police
raided its offices and confiscated 186 servers, but the site was
offline for only three days [96, 97]. After the site was
reactivated, the number of people accessing it increased
significantly, perhaps because of the international publicity
the Pirate Bay received as a result of the raid [96].
In 2008 the International Federation of the Phonographic
Industry sued four individuals connected with the Pirate Bay
for making available 33 copyrighted works: twenty songs,
nine films, and four computer games [95]. The defendants
argued that the Pirate Bay is simply a search engine and does
not host any copyrighted content [98]. In April 2009, a
District Court in Stockholm found Carl Lundström, Fredrik
Neij, Peter Sunde, and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg guilty of
aiding and abetting copyright infringement. All four were
sentenced to one year in prison, and altogether were fined 30
million Swedish kronor (about $3.6 million). In November
2010, an appeals court in Sweden upheld the convictions but
shortened the sentences and increased the fine to 46 million
kronor ($6.5 million) [99].
6
Meanwhile, the Pirate Bay Web site is still operational and
enormously popular. In many countries the Pirate Bay’s
official URL is blocked by Internet service providers. People
in these countries are still able to access the Pirate Bay by
connecting to one of more than 150 proxy sites hosted in
countries that do not block access to the Pirate Bay.
4.6.5 PRO-IP Act
In 2008 the US Congress passed the Prioritizing Resources
and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act. The
PRO-IP Act gives federal law-enforcement agencies the
authority to seize the domain names of Web sites that are
allegedly facilitating copyright infringement or trafficking in
counterfeit goods.
In June 2010, the US Department of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement launched Operation In Our Sites,
seizing the domain names of 10 Web sites that were making
available first-run movies “often within hours of their
theatrical release” [100]. Over the next year and a half,
several hundred more domain names were seized, including
sites that were streaming live broadcasts of the National
Football League, the National Basketball Association, the
National Hockey League, World Wrestling Entertainment,
and the Ultimate Fighting Championship [101].
4.6.6 Megaupload
Shutdown
Megaupload Limited, based in Hong Kong, was a prominent
cyberlocker. It had more than 180 million registered users,
and at one point it was the world’s 13th most popular Web
site, accounting for “approximately four percent of the total
traffic on the Internet” [102]. A substantial percentage of the
network traffic to and from the cyberlocker was associated
with the sharing of copyrighted movies, television programs,
songs, and computer games. The founder of Megaupload,
Kim Dotcom, lived in Auckland, New Zealand.
In January 2012, the FBI worked with police in New Zealand
and Hong Kong to shut down the Megaupload cyberlocker
and arrest Kim Dotcom and three associates for violating the
PRO-IP Act [103]. According to the grand jury indictment,
Kim Dotcom and his codefendants were part of “a
worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in
criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a
massive scale with estimated harm to copyright holders well
in excess of $500,000,000 and reported income in excess of
$175,000,000” [102]. The indictment claimed that the
defendants had paid millions of dollars to premium
subscribers for uploading popular copyrighted works to the
cyberlocker, as a way of increasing the number of paid
subscribers.
Other cyberlockers responded quickly to the news. A few
days after the shutdown of Megaupload, FileSonic posted an
announcement on its Web site, stating that it had disabled all
file-sharing functionality [104]. The FileServe site posted a
similar message [105].
7
4.6.7 Legal Online Access
to Entertainment
The widespread piracy of music, television shows, and
movies on the Internet has put pressure on companies selling
these products to make “doing the right thing”—obtaining a
legal copy—as easy as “doing the wrong thing” [106].
Industry has risen to the challenge.
A good example is the continued evolution of online music
services. As we saw in Section 4.5.6, when Apple launched
the iTunes Music Store, it included a digital-rights
management system called FairPlay with the songs that were
downloaded. Consumers were unhappy with the FairPlay
restrictions. Meanwhile, Amazon reached an agreement with
all four major labels to sell music without digital-rights
management restrictions. Responding to these consumer and
competitive pressures, Apple dropped FairPlay and began
selling music free of digital-rights management.
Now, more than a decade later, consumers have shifted from
music ownership toward anytime-anywhere access offered by
music streaming services [107]. Globally, there are more than
400 licensed music services, including Spotify, Deezer,
Pandora, and Apple Music. These providers offer two
streaming-service models. In the ad-supported model,
listeners can have music and advertisements streamed to their
devices for free; the services earn income and pay royalties to
artists from advertising revenue. In the subscription services
model, listeners pay a monthly fee to receive music free from
commercial interruptions. Streaming now accounts for twothirds of the global revenue of the recorded music industry
[108].
In the video-streaming arena, a variety of subscription
services, including Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+,
HBO Max, Paramount+, Apple TV+, and Hulu, provide
convenient access to television shows, movies, and original
programming. Over 80 percent of US homes now subscribe
to at least one video-streaming service [109].
4.7 Protections for
Software
In the early days of the computer industry, there was no
strong demand for intellectual property protection for
software. Most commercial software was produced by the
same companies manufacturing computer hardware. They
sold complete systems to customers, and the licensing
agreements covered use of the software as well as the
hardware. Interest in copyrighting software grew with the
emergence of an independent software industry in the 1960s.
4.7.1 Software Copyrights
The first software copyrights were applied for in 1964. The
Copyright Office allowed the submitted computer programs
to be registered, reasoning that a computer program is like a
“how-to” book. The Copyright Act of 1976 explicitly
recognizes that software can be copyrighted.
When a piece of software gets copyright protection, what
exactly is copyrighted? First, copyright protects the original
expression of an idea, not the idea itself. For example,
suppose you develop a program for a relational database
management system. You may be able to copyright your
implementation of a relational database management system,
but you cannot copyright the concept of using relational
databases to store information.
8
Second, copyright usually protects the executable program,
not the source program. Typically, the source code to a
program is confidential, in other words, a trade secret of the
enterprise that developed it. The company only distributes
the executable program to its customers. The copyright also
protects the screen displays produced by the program as it
executes. This is particularly valuable for the developers of
video games.
4.7.2 Violations of Software
Copyrights
The holder of a copyright has a right to control the
reproduction of the copyrighted material. The definition of
what it means to make a copy of a program is broad.
Suppose you purchase a program stored on a CD. If you
transfer a copy of the program from the CD to a hard disk,
you are making a copy of it. If you execute the program, it is
copied from the hard disk of the computer into its random-
access memory (RAM). This, too, is considered making a
copy of the program. The standard licensing agreement that
comes with a piece of commercial software allows the
purchaser of the product to do both of the above-mentioned
copying operations.
However, doing any of the following actions without the
authorization of the copyright holder is a violation of
copyright law:
1. Copying a program onto a CD to give or sell to
someone else
2. Preloading a program onto the hard disk of a computer
being sold
3. Distributing a program over the Internet
Another kind of copyright violation can occur when a
company attempts to create software that competes with an
existing product. Two court cases illustrate a copyright
infringement and fair use of another company’s product.
Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer
In the early 1980s, Franklin Computer Corp. manufactured
the Franklin ACE to compete with the Apple II. The Franklin
ACE was Apple II compatible, meaning that programs sold
for the Apple II would run on the Franklin ACE without
modification. In order to ensure compatibility, the Franklin
ACE contained operating-systems functions directly copied
from a ROM on the Apple II. Apple Computer sued Franklin
for infringing on its copyright. The US Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit ruled in favor of Apple Computer,
establishing that object programs are copyrightable.
Sega v. Accolade
Video game maker Accolade wanted to port some of its
games to the Sega Genesis console. Sega did not make
available a technical specification for the Genesis console, so
Accolade disassembled the object code of a Sega game in
order to determine how to interface a video game with the
game console. Sega sued Accolade for infringing on its
copyright. In 1992 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled in favor of Accolade, judging that Accolade’s
actions constituted fair use of the software. It noted that
Accolade had no other way of discerning the hardware
interface and that the public would benefit from additional
video games being available on the Genesis console.
9
4.7.3 Safe Software
Development
An organization must be careful not to violate the copyrights
held by its competitors. Even unconscious copying can have
serious consequences. Years after hearing the song “He’s So
Fine,” George Harrison wrote “My Sweet Lord.” The owner
of “He’s So Fine” sued Harrison for copyright infringement
and prevailed after a lengthy legal battle. Unconscious
copying is a real concern in the software industry because
programmers frequently move from one firm to another.
Suppose a company needs to develop a software product that
duplicates the functionality of a competitor’s product without
violating the competitor’s copyright. For example, in the
1980s companies developing IBM-compatible computers
needed to develop their own implementations of the BIOS
(basic input/output system). A “clean-room” software
development strategy helps ensure a company’s software
program does not duplicate any code in another company’s
product.
In this strategy two independent teams work on the project.
The first team is responsible for determining how the
competitor’s program works. It may access the program’s
source code, if it is available. If it cannot get access to the
source, it may disassemble the object code of the competitor’s
product. It also reads the product’s user manuals and
technical documentation. The first team produces a technical
specification for the software product. The specification
simply states how the product is supposed to function. It says
nothing about how to implement the functionality.
The second team is isolated from the first team. Members of
this team have never seen any code or documentation from
the competitor’s product. They rely solely on the technical
specification to develop, code, and debug the software
meeting the specification. By isolating the code developers
from the competitor’s product, the company developing the
competing product can demonstrate that its employees have
not copied code, even unconsciously.
Oracle v. Google
Sun Microsystems developed the Java programming language
in the 1990s. Java has become one of the world’s most
popular programming languages, in part because of its
interoperability; Java programs are compiled into bytecode
that can be executed on any Java virtual machine regardless
of the underlying computer hardware. Software engineers at
Sun developed functions for input and output, graphical user
interfaces, mathematical calculations, and much more, which
were grouped into packages. They also created the Java
application programming interface (API), which has declaring
code that specifies exactly how programmers should invoke
the functions in the various packages.
Sun derived income from Java by licensing it to mobile phone
manufacturers, such as Nokia, Motorola, and Research in
Motion. In 2005 Google purchased Android, which was
developing the Android operating system for mobile phones.
Google negotiated with Sun to license the Java libraries, but
no deal was reached. At that point, Google’s programmers
developed a clean-room implementation of Java, but they
copied 11,500 lines of declaring code from 37 Java API
packages in order to save time. Google released a beta
version of Android in 2007.
When Oracle America purchased Sun Microsystems in 2010,
it acquired Java. Later that year, Oracle sued Google for
copyright infringement. In 2012 the District Court for the
Northern District of California ruled that the Java APIs were
not copyrightable [110]. In 2014 the US Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the
case back to the District Court for a second trial, asking the
District Court to determine whether Google’s copying of the
API declarations was a fair use of copyrighted material [111].
At the end of a second District Court trial, a jury ruled in
2016 that Google’s use of the function declarations was a fair
use of copyrighted material [112]. In 2018 the US Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Google’s copying
of 11,500 lines of declaring code of the 37 Java API packages
did not meet any of the four criteria for fair use and violated
Oracle’s copyright. The Court noted that Google
programmers had copied 11,500 lines of declaring code when
they were only required to copy 170 lines of code to maintain
the same functionality. According to the court, copying
11,330 more lines of code than necessary “weighs against fair
use” [113].
0
4.7.4 Software Patents
Both copyrights and patents are used to provide intellectual
property protection to software. Table 4.3 shows the primary
differences between the two.
Table 4.3
The key differences between the copyright and patent software-protection
systems.
Origins of Software Patents
Until the early 1980s, the US Patent and Trademark Office
refused to grant patents for computer software. Its position
was that a computer program is a mathematical algorithm,
not a process or a machine.
However, a US Supreme Court decision in 1981 forced the
Patent and Trademark Office to begin considering software
patents. In the case of Diamond v. Diehr, the Supreme Court
ruled that an invention related to curing rubber could be
patented. Even though the company’s principal innovation
was the use of a computer to control the heating of the
rubber, the invention was a new process for rubber molding,
and hence patentable.
Further court rulings compelled the Patent and Trademark
Office to begin issuing patents for a much broader range of
software. In 1992 the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit considered a patent application from a company that
had developed a computerized monitoring device that
analyzed signals from an electrocardiograph to determine
whether a heart-attack victim was at risk of a dangerous
arrhythmia. The court ruled that the software was patentable
because the numbers being manipulated by the computer
program represented concrete values in the real world.
Further court rulings reinforced the idea that computer
software and data structures could be patented in the United
States [114].
1
Since then, hundreds of thousands of software patents have
been granted [115]. Microsoft alone files about 3,000 patent
applications every year [116]. Companies generate revenue
by licensing their software patents to other companies. It’s
also common for several technology companies to hold
patents that cover different but essential components of a
commercial product. By signing an agreement to cross-license
each other’s patents, all the companies are free to bring their
own versions of the product to market.
Patent-Holding Companies
Given the value of software patents, it’s not surprising that a
secondary market for them has arisen. When a company
holding patents goes bankrupt, it is typical for its patents to
be sold to another company [117]. Some companies
specialize in holding patents and licensing the rights to use
these patents. Patent-holding companies aggressively use the
courts to enforce their patent rights; these companies are
sometimes referred to by their detractors as patent trolls.
Because defending against a patent-infringement lawsuit can
easily exceed a million dollars, companies that get sued have
a strong motivation simply to settle out of court, putting
patent trolls “in a position to negotiate licensing fees that are
grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged
infringer’s product or services” [118].
In 1992 inventor Thomas Campana and lawyer Donald Stout
formed New Technologies Products (NTP), a patent-holding
company. The purpose of the company was never to make
anything but was to protect valuable intellectual property.
About half of the company’s 50 patents were originally held
by Telefind Corporation, which went out of business. In
2000 NTP sent letters to several companies, warning them
that they were infringing on NTP wireless email patents and
inviting them to negotiate licensing rights. One of these
letters went to Research In Motion (RIM), maker of the
BlackBerry, but RIM did not respond. The next year NTP
sued RIM for patent infringement. Instead of settling out of
court for a few million dollars, RIM took the case to trial and
lost. After more unsuccessful legal maneuvering, RIM in
2006 agreed to pay NTP $612.5 million to settle the patent
infringement dispute [119, 120].
Harms From Too Many Software Patents
Critics of software patents argue that too many software
patents have been granted. A problem faced by patent
examiners in the Patent and Trademark Office is knowing
what the existing technical knowledge (prior art) in computer
programming is. Patent examiners typically look at patents
already issued to determine prior art. This works fine for
other kinds of inventions, but it doesn’t work well for
software patents because a significant amount of software
was written before software patents were first granted. The
consequence is that patent examiners have issued many “bad
patents”—patents that would not have been issued if the
examiner knew about all the prior art. The Patent Office has
also been criticized for granting patents for trivial inventions
that would be obvious to any skilled computer programmer.
As a consequence of the sheer volume of software patents,
the large number of bad patents, and the number of obvious
software inventions that are patented, any company releasing
a new product that includes software runs a significant risk
of being sued for infringing a software patent owned by
someone else. Thousands of patent lawsuits are filed in the
United States every year [121]. Large corporations are
resorting to building stockpiles of their own patents, so that
if they are sued for infringing another company’s patent, they
can retaliate with their own patent-infringement countersuit.
The use of software patents as legal weapons is a perversion
of their original purpose [122].
2
Smartphone Patent Wars
In 2009 Nokia filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that
Apple had violated 10 patents owned by Nokia related to
wireless communication, and demanding royalty payments
[123]. Apple responded by suing Nokia for violating 13
patents owned by Apple [124].
Apple also took action against several makers of Android
smartphones [121]. Of these lawsuits, the dispute between
Apple and Samsung is particularly notable. Apple filed a
lawsuit in 2011 accusing Samsung of both patent and
trademark infringement, claiming Samsung’s Galaxy phones
and tablets copied the “look and feel” of Apple iPhones and
iPads, including rounded corners, tapered edges, use of a
home button, slide-to-unlock, and the bounce-back visual
effect when a user overscrolls [125]. Samsung countersued,
claiming Apple had violated Samsung patents on mobile
communication technologies. The two corporations filed
more suits and countersuits around the globe; by the middle
of 2012 the companies were involved in more than 50
lawsuits worldwide [126]. Their legal fees exceeded $1 billion
[127]. Some of the lawsuits were won by Apple, Samsung
prevailed in other cases, and some of the cases were
dismissed. Even before the lawsuits were resolved, Android
makers began changing portions of their user interfaces to
avoid infringing on Apple’s patents [128].
Eventually, Sony, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Motorola,
Xiamoni, and HTC were drawn into the fray, which acquired
the nickname “the smartphone patent wars.” More than 100
lawsuits and countersuits were filed by smartphone
manufacturers claiming patent violations by their
competitors. At the end of 2014, the smartphone makers
agreed to cross-license each other’s patents [129].
Notwithstanding the cross-licensing agreement, legal
proceedings continued for years over how much Samsung
should have to pay Apple, after a 2012 jury verdict
determined that Samsung had infringed on three design
patents and two utility patents owned by Apple. That jury
had called for Samsung to pay Apple $1 billion in damages.
At the end of 2015, Samsung agreed to pay Apple $548
million on the condition that Samsung would be reimbursed
if its legal appeal resulted in a smaller judgment [130]. In
2018 another trial ended in San Jose, California, with the
jury deciding that Samsung should pay Apple $539 million in
damages [131].
Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank
According to some critics, the smartphone patent wars were a
good example of how overly broad software patents were
hampering innovation. Many hoped the US Supreme Court
would take action to circumscribe patent protection for
software. The Supreme Court did just that in 2014 with its
decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank.
Alice Corporation had been granted several software patents
related to managing financial transactions using a third party
and an escrow account to ensure that both parties to every
transaction meet their obligations. After CLS Bank
implemented a computerized financial transaction system,
Alice Corporation sued CLS Bank for infringing on its
patents. In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court
ruled against Alice Corporation. It noted that escrow is an
abstract idea and managing escrow is a common business
method. According to the Court, in order for an abstract idea
to be patentable, there must be an “inventive concept”;
simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not
sufficient. The patent claims held by Alice Corporation did
not meet that standard and were therefore ineligible for
patent protection [132, 133].
3
In the years since the Supreme Court ruling, many district
courts and federal courts have cited Alice Corporation v. CLS
Bank to invalidate hundreds of software patents [134]. In one
noteworthy case from 2015, a US District judge for the
Eastern District of Texas granted the motions of defendants
and in a summary judgment threw out 168 patentinfringement lawsuits that had been filed by eDekka (a
notorious patent-holding company), ruling that the software
patent used as the basis of the lawsuits—“Random Access
Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels”—was
invalid [135, 136].
The Alice decision has also had a significant impact on the
US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). After the Alice
decision the USPTO released new guidelines to patent
examiners, and the rejection rate for software patent
applications rose sharply [137, 138].
In another decision, Williamson v. Citrix Online, the US
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent
for a distributed learning system was invalid because it failed
to disclose the structure of the invention [139]. The
Williamson decision sets a precedent for other courts to strike
down software patents that are determined to be “too broad
and indefinite” [140].
4.8 Legitimacy of
Intellectual Property
Protection For
Software
Licenses for proprietary software usually forbid you from
making copies of the software to give or sell to someone else.
If you violate the license, you are breaching a contract. In this
section we are not discussing the morality of breaching a
contract. Rather, we are considering whether as a society we
ought to give the producers of software the right to prevent
others from copying the software they produce. In other
words, should we give copyright and/or patent protection to
software?
Rights- based and consequentialist arguments have been
given for granting intellectual property protection to those
who create software. Let’s review and test the strength of
these arguments. To simplify the discussion, we’ll assume
that a piece of software is written by a person. In reality,
most software is created by teams, and the company
employing the team owns the rights to the software the team
produces. However, the logic is the same whether the
software creator is an individual or a corporation.
4.8.1 Rights-Based Analysis
Not everyone can write good computer programs, and
programming is hard work. Programmers who write useful
programs that are widely used by others should be rewarded
for their labor. That means they should own the programs
they write. Ownership implies control. If somebody creates a
piece of software, they have the right to decide who gets to
use it. Software owners ought to be able to charge others for
using their programs. Everybody ought to respect these
intellectual property rights.
4
This line of reasoning is a variation of Locke’s natural-rights
argument that we discussed at the beginning of the chapter. It
is based on the Lockean notion that mixing your labor with
something gives you an ownership right in it.
Here are two criticisms of the “just deserts”1 argument. First,
why does mixing your labor with something mean that you
own it? Doesn’t it make just as much sense to believe that if
you mix your labor with something you lose your labor?
Robert Nozick gives this example: If you own a can of
tomato juice and pour it in the ocean, mixing the tomato
juice with the salt water, you do not own the ocean. Instead,
you have lost your can of tomato juice. Certainly, it would be
unjust if someone else could claim ownership of something
you labored to produce, but if there were no notion of
property ownership and everybody understood when they
mixed their labor with something they lost their labor, it
would be just.
Of course, we do live in a society that has the notion of
ownership of tangible property. How can we justify giving a
farmer the right to the crop they labor to produce while
failing to give a programmer the right to the accounting
program they produce for the benefit of the farmer?
Still, if we do want to give ownership rights to those who
produce intellectual property, we run into the problem we
discussed at the beginning of the chapter. Locke’s naturalrights argument for owning property does not hold up well
when extended to the realm of intellectual property. There
are two crucial differences between intellectual property and
tangible property. Each piece of intellectual property must be
unique in order to be protectable, and copying intellectual
property is different from stealing something physical.
4.8.2 Utilitarian Analysis
Another argument posits that failing to provide intellectual
property protection for software producers would have
harmful consequences overall. The argument goes like this
[141]: When software is copied, it reduces software
purchases. If less software is purchased, less money flows to
the producers of software. As a result, less new software is
produced. As a whole, new software titles benefit society.
When the number of new titles drops, society is harmed.
Therefore, when software is copied, society is harmed, and
copying software is harmful.
You can view this argument as a chain of consequences
(Figure 4.8). Copying software causes software sales to drop,
which causes the software industry to decline and,
subsequently, fewer products to be released, which causes
society to be harmed. Logically, all the links in the chain
must be strong in order for the argument to be convincing.
Let’s look at each of the links in turn.
F‍igure 4.8


The chain of reasoning of a consequentialist argument for why copying
software is bad.
(Beth Anderson)
The first claim is that copying software results in reduced
sales of software. When talking about software piracy, the

computer industry cites the dollar value of the copied
software as if each instance of copying represents a lost sale.
Obviously, this is an exaggeration. Not everyone who gets a
free copy of a computer game has the money or the desire to
purchase the game. In fact, sometimes software copying may
lead to a sale. A person may not have been interested in
buying a particular program. After trying it out for free, the
person may decide it is so useful they are willing to buy a
copy of the program in order to get access to all the
documentation, the technical support line, or another service
provided to registered users of the program. It is fair to say
that copying software sometimes results in reduced sales of
software, but it is not always the case. Hence it is incorrect to
make a universal statement.
5
The second claim is that reduced sales of software result in a
decline in the software industry. An argument against this
claim is the continued success of Microsoft, despite the fact
that software counterfeiting is prevalent in some countries. A
better argument against the claim is that it makes a strong
cause-and-effect connection between the creation of software
and financial remuneration. However, the open-source
movement demonstrates many people are willing to create
software without being rewarded financially. Some people
write programs because they find it fun. Others are motivated
by the desire to gain a good reputation by writing a program
many people find useful. Advocates of open-source software,
including Richard Stallman, suggest that the best way to
stimulate innovation is to allow a free exchange of ideas and
source code. From this point of view, allowing software
producers to control the distribution of their code stifles,
rather than promotes, innovation in the software industry.
Furthermore, the second claim assumes that software
customers are solely responsible for the health of the software
industry. In reality, other groups want to ensure that there
are plenty of new software titles released. Intel, for example,
makes its money from selling CPU chips. Every year the chips
are faster. If a person owns a computer fast enough to run his
current programs, they have little motivation to upgrade the
hardware. However, if that same person purchases a new
program that requires additional CPU cycles, they may be
motivated to upgrade their computer. Hence it is in Intel’s
interest to encourage the development of ever more
computationally intensive computer programs. Software
customers are not solely responsible for promoting the
growth of the software industry.
The third claim is that new software packages benefit society.
This is a difficult claim to prove. Certainly, some programs
benefit society more than others. Hence it’s not the number
of different programs that matters; it’s what they can be used
for. The utility of new software titles must be weighed
against the utility of letting people give away copies of
programs that would help their friends.
6
4.8.3 Conclusion
We have examined two arguments for why society ought to
provide intellectual property protection to software creators.
The first argument is based on the notion of just deserts. It is
a variation of the natural-rights argument we discussed at the
beginning of the chapter. This argument is weak; it rests on
the faulty assumption that a natural right to own property
extends cleanly to intellectual property.
The second argument is based on consequences. It holds that
denying intellectual property protection for software would
have harmful consequences. It relies upon a chain of cause-
and-effect relationships: copying leads to a loss of revenue,
which leads to a decline in software production, which harms
society. The strength of each of the links in the chain is
debatable; taken as a whole, the argument is not strong.
Our conclusion is that the arguments for granting intellectual
property protection for software are not strong. Nevertheless,
our society has granted copyright protection to owners of
computer programs. If you violate a licensing agreement by
copying a CD containing a computer program and giving it
to a friend, you are breaching a contract. From the viewpoint
of Kantianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract theory,
breaching a contract is wrong unless there is a strong
overriding moral obligation to do so.
onounced with the accent on the second syllable. Think of the related word
deserve.”
4.9 Open-Source
Software
4.9.1 Evolution of
Proprietary Software
In the early years of commercial computing, there was no
independent software industry. Computer manufacturers
such as IBM produced both the hardware and the software
needed for the system to be usable. Well into the 1960s,
software distributions included the source code. Customers
who wanted to fix bugs in the programs or add new features
could do so by modifying the source code and generating a
new executable version of the program.
In the 1970s the number of computer applications expanded,
and organizations recognized the increasing value of
software. To protect their investments in software
development, most companies decided to make their
programs proprietary.
Today, companies developing proprietary software tightly
control the distribution of their intellectual property.
Typically, they do this by treating source code as a trade
secret and distributing only the object code, which is not in
human-readable form. In addition, they do not sell the object
code. Instead, when people “purchase” the program, what
they are actually buying is a license allowing them to run the
program. Their rights to do other things with the code, such
as make backup copies, are limited.
Software licensing models have evolved. Until the early
2000s, proprietary license models were the norm. In a
proprietary license model, the customer purchases a one-time
license to use the software. The customer can use the
software in perpetuity, but the customer does not have the
right to receive updates or technical support without
additional licenses. Subscription models emerged in the early
2000s and have become increasingly popular among software
companies. In a subscription model, customers pay a monthly
or annual fee to use the software and to receive software
updates and technical support [142].
7
Companies developing new software platforms have the
option of making their platforms “open” or “closed.” An
open platform has publicly available design and
implementation details, usually based on open standards, that
allow independent developers to create new products for the
platform. When multiple companies create products based on
the same open standards, consumers benefit in several ways.
A larger community of developers can enhance innovation
and bring new products to market sooner. Competition keeps
prices lower. Products from different companies can be
combined. Consumers do not have to worry about getting
“locked in” to a particular company’s product. Google’s
Android operating system is an example of an open platform.
In a closed platform (or proprietary platform or walled
garden), the company keeps tight control over the
applications available to users. Closed platforms have some
benefits for consumers. By vetting applications, the company
can ensure a consistent user experience as well as maintain
security and reliability standards. Closed platforms also
provide companies the ability to generate revenue from the
sale of applications. Apple’s iOS operating system is an
example of a closed platform.
4.9.2 Consequences of
Proprietary Software
Governments have given ownership rights to those who
produce computer software because of the perceived
beneficial consequences. A key benefit is the ability to profit
from the licensing of the software. The assumption is that
people will work harder and be more creative if they must
compete with others to produce the best product. Those who
produce the best products will have the opportunity to make
money from them.
While most people point to the benefits of a system
encouraging the development of proprietary software, some
people have noted the harms caused by such a system. As
noted above, a well-known critic of proprietary software is
Richard Stallman. According to Stallman, granting
intellectual property rights to creators of computer software
has numerous harmful consequences [143]:
Digital technology has made copying trivial. In order to
enforce copyrights in the digital age, increasingly harsh
measures are being taken. These measures infringe on
our liberties.
The purpose of the copyright system is to promote
progress, not to make authors wealthy. Copyrights are
not promoting progress in the computer software field.
It is wrong to allow someone to “own” a piece of
intellectual property. Granting someone this ownership
forces the users of a piece of intellectual property to
choose between respecting ownership rights and helping
their friends. When this happens, the correct action is
clear. If a friend asks you for a copy of a proprietary
program, you would be wrong to refuse your friend.
“Cooperation is more important than copyright.”
The open-source movement is the philosophical position that
source code to software ought to be freely distributed and
that people should be encouraged to examine and improve
each other’s code. The open-source software movement
promotes a cooperative model of software development.
8
4.9.3 “Open Source”
Definition
Open source is an alternative way of distributing software.
Numerous definitions of open source exist. According to the
Open Source Initiative, licenses for open-source programs
have the following key characteristics (there are others)
[144]:
1. There are no restrictions preventing others from selling
or giving away the software.
2. The source code to the program must be included in the
distribution or easily available by other means (such as
downloadable from the Internet).
3. There are no restrictions preventing people from
modifying the source code, and derived works can be
distributed according to the same license terms as the
original program.
4. There are no restrictions regarding how people can use
the software.
5. These rights apply to everyone receiving redistributions
of the software without the need for additional
licensing agreements.
6. The license cannot put restrictions on other software
that is part of the same distribution. For example, a
program’s open-source license cannot require all the
other programs on the CD to be open source.
Note that there is nothing in these guidelines that says an
open-source program must be given away for free. While
people may freely exchange open-source programs, a
company has the right to sell an open-source program.
However, a company cannot stop others from selling it
either. In order for a company to be successful selling opensource software that people can find for free on the Internet,
it must add some value to the software. Perhaps it packages
the software so that it is particularly easy to install. It may
provide great manuals, or it may provide support after the
sale.
The Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org) is a
nonprofit corporation that promotes a common definition of
open source. In July 2023, its Web site listed the names of
more than 90 software licenses that met its definition of open
source.
4.9.4 Beneficial
Consequences of OpenSource Software
Advocates of open-source software describe five beneficial
consequences of open-source licensing.
The first benefit of open source is that it gives everyone using
a program the opportunity to improve it. People can fix bugs,
add enhancements, or adapt the program for entirely new
uses. Software evolves more quickly when more people are
working on it.
Rapid evolution of open-source software leads to the second
benefit: new versions of open-source programs appear much
more frequently than new versions of commercial programs.
Users of open-source programs do not have to wait as long
for bug fixes and patches [145].
A third benefit of open source is that it eliminates the tension
between obeying copyright law and helping others. Suppose
you legally purchased a traditional license to use a program
and your friend asks you for a copy. You must choose
between helping your friend and conforming to the license
agreement. If the program had an open-source license, you
would be free to distribute copies of it to anyone who wanted
it.
9
The fourth benefit is that open-source programs are the
property of the entire user community, not just a single
vendor. If a vendor selling a proprietary program decides not
to invest in further improvements to it, the user community is
stuck. In contrast, a user community with access to the
source code of a program may continue its development
indefinitely [145].
The fifth benefit of open source is that it shifts the focus from
manufacturing to service, which can result in customers
getting better support for their software [145]. If source code
were distributed freely, companies would make money by
providing support, and the companies that provided the best
support would be rewarded in the marketplace [146].
4.9.5 Examples of OpenSource Software
Open- source software is a key part of the Internet’s
infrastructure, and an increasing number of open-source
applications are reaching the desktop. Here are a few
examples of highly successful programs distributed under
open-source licenses:
BIND provides DNS (domain name service) for the
entire Internet.
Apache runs about one-third of the world’s Web
servers.
The most widely used program for moving email about
the Internet is the open-source program sendmail.
The Android operating system is the world’s best-selling
smartphone platform [147].
Firefox is the world's number-four Web browser [148].
OpenOffice.org is an office application suite supporting
word processing, spreadsheets, databases, and
presentations.
Perl is the most popular Web programming language.
Other popular open-source programming languages
and tools are Python, Ruby, TCL/TK, PHP, and Zope.
Programmers have long recognized the high quality of
the GNU compilers for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran,
Java, and Ada.
Surveys indicate that the quality and dependability of opensource software is about the same as that of commercial
software [149].
4.9.6 The GNU Project and
Linux
The GNU Project and Linux are important success stories in
the history of the open-source movement. (GNU is
pronounced “guh-new” with the accent on the second
syllable. It’s a tradition among hackers to invent recursive
acronyms; GNU stands for “GNU’s Not Unix.”) Richard
Stallman began the GNU Project in 1984. The goal of the
project was ambitious: to develop a complete Unix-like
operating system consisting entirely of open-source software.
0
In order to be fully functional, a modern operating system
must include text editors, command processors, assemblers,
compilers, debuggers, device drivers, mail servers, and many
other programs. During the late 1980s, Stallman and others
developed most of the necessary components. The GNU
Project also benefited from open-source software previously
developed by others, notably Donald Knuth’s TEX
typesetting system (used to typeset this book) and MIT’s X
Window System. Most of the software developed as part of
the GNU Project is distributed under the GNU Public
License, an example of an open-source license. (For technical
reasons some programs have been distributed as open-source
software under other licenses.)
In 1991 Linus Torvalds began work on a Unix-like kernel he
named Linux. (The kernel is the software at the very heart of
an operating system.) He released version 1.0 of the kernel in
1994. Because the other major components of a Unix-like
operating system had already been created through the GNU
Project, Torvalds was able to combine all the software into a
complete, open-source, Unix-like operating system. To the
obvious chagrin of Stallman, Linux has become the
commonly accepted name for the open-source operating
system based on the Linux kernel. (Stallman urges people to
refer to the entire system as GNU/Linux [150].)
4.9.7 Impact of OpenSource Software
In 1998 Andrew Leonard summarized the impact of Linux
this way: “Linux is subversive. Who could have thought even
five years ago that a world-class operating system could
coalesce as if by magic out of part-time hacking by several
thousand developers scattered all over the planet, connected
only by the tenuous strands of the Internet?” [146].
Linux has become a viable alternative to proprietary versions
of Unix. Many companies adopted Linux as a way to cut
costs during the recession of 2008–2009 [151]. A survey
conducted in June 2022 revealed that 48 percent of the
world’s 500 fastest supercomputers were running the Linux
operating system [152].
4.10 Creative
Commons
As we saw earlier in this chapter, some believe strong
intellectual property protection stimulates creativity by
dangling the prospect of financial reward in front of artists
and inventors. Others believe that creativity is suppressed in
such an environment. They argue that people are more
creative when they are free to build on the work of others.
Consider music, for example. It’s not just rap musicians who
sample the works of others to create new songs. Listen to the
classical piece Appalachian Spring by Aaron Copland and
you’ll find that he used the Shaker hymn “Simple Gifts.”
Information technology has created an environment in which
an unprecedented amount of creativity could be unleashed.
Never before has it been so inexpensive to record and mix
music, combine photographs and computer-generated
images, or tape and edit movies. Wouldn’t it be great to take
what others have done and add your own talents to produce
even better works of art for everyone’s enjoyment? Quoting
the movie Get Creative on the Creative Commons Web site:
“Collaboration across space and time. Creative co-authorship
with people you’ve never met. Standing on the shoulders of
your peers. It’s what the Internet is all about” [153].
1
Strong intellectual property protection, however, stands in
the way of this vision. Under current US copyright law,
works of intellectual property are copyrighted the moment
they are made, even if the creator does not attach a copyright
symbol © to the work. Since copyright is implicit, permission
is required before use. The current system discourages people
from building on the work of others.
Imagine the difficulty an art professor has trying to put
together a Web site of images for an online course! They need
to request permission for every image they wish to display on
the Web site. Suppose there are three suitable images of
Michelangelo’s Pietà. It may be impossible for them to tell in
advance which, if any, of the photographers would be willing
to let them use the image. It would be better if there were an
official way for a photographer to say, “It’s fine if you use
this photograph, as long as you give me credit for taking it.”
Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig realized there was a
need for a system that would allow producers of intellectual
property to indicate to the world the rights they wanted to
keep. Lessig asks us to think about instances of the commons,
a “resource to which anyone within the relevant community
has a right without obtaining the permission of anyone else”
[154, pp. 19–20]. Examples of the commons include public
streets, parks, beaches, the theory of relativity, and the works
of Shakespeare. Lessig says that “there is a benefit to
resources held in common and the Internet is the best
evidence of that benefit. . . . The Internet forms an innovation
commons” [154, p. 23]. The reason Lessig calls the Internet
an innovation commons is because its control is
decentralized: one person can introduce a new application or
new content without getting anyone else’s permission.
Lessig joined with Hal Abelson, James Boyle, Eric Eldred,
and Eric Saltzman to found the nonprofit corporation
Creative Commons in 2001. Creative Commons provides
standard copyright licenses free of charge. Every license
comes in three forms: human-readable, lawyer-readable, and
computer-readable. With a Creative Commons license, you
can retain the copyright while allowing some uses of your
intellectual property under certain circumstances. Because
you have published the circumstances under which your
work may be used, others do not have to ask for permission
before using your work [153].
How does the system work? Suppose you have taken a
photograph and wish to post it on your Web site
accompanied by a Creative Commons license. You visit the
Creative Commons Web site (www.creativecommons.org),
which allows you to choose between six different licenses,
depending upon your responses to two questions (quoted
verbatim):
Allow adaptations of your work to be shared?
Yes
No
Yes, as long as others share alike
Allow commercial uses of your work?
Yes
No
2
After you answer these two questions, the Web site creates
HTML code containing the appropriate Creative Commons
license. You can copy the HTML code and paste it into the
appropriate Web page along with your photograph. Visitors
to your Web site will be able to see a human-readable
summary of the license you have chosen (Figure 4.9).
F‍igure 4.9


A portion of the human-readable summary of a Creative Commons license
as it appears to a Web site visitor.
(Screenshot from Creative Commons. Copyright © 2018 by Creative
Commercial artists may choose to use Creative Commons
licenses to increase exposure to their work. For example,
suppose you take a great photograph of the Golden Gate
Bridge. You post it on your Web site with a Creative

Commons license indicating the photograph may be used for
noncommercial purposes as long as the user gives attribution
to you. People from around the world think the image is
stunning, and they copy it to their own personal Web sites,
giving you credit for the photo. A travel agent in a foreign
country sees the image and wants to put it on a travel poster.
Since this is a commercial purpose, they must gain your
permission before using the image. At that time you can
negotiate a fair price for its use. Without the widespread
distribution of the image through a Creative Commons
license, the travel agent might never have seen it.
3
The computer-readable versions of the licenses are designed
to make it easier for search engines to identify content based
upon the particular criteria. For example, a history professor
might use a search engine hoping to find an image of the
Coliseum in Rome that they could include on their Web site.
Their purpose is noncommercial and they are happy to credit
the photographer, but they do not want to have to pay to
display the image or write a letter asking for the
photographer’s permission. A search engine could return only
those images that meet these criteria.
By 2008, about 130 million different pieces of intellectual
property had been distributed using Creative Commons
licenses. In 2009 the Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike license became the principal content license for
Wikipedia. In 2023 Flickr alone had more than 475 million
photos available under Creative Commons licenses [155].
Summary
At the beginning of Chapter 2 we noted how forming
communities allows us to enjoy better lives than if we lived in
isolation. One of the advantages of community life is being
able to enjoy the fruits of other people’s creativity, and we do
in fact spend much of our time enjoying entertainment
created by others—television shows, movies, music, and
games—delivered on electronic devices that are also the fruits
of human ingenuity. It should come as no surprise, then, that
our society promotes the creation of intellectual property.
To stimulate creativity in technology and the arts,
governments have decided to grant limited ownership rights
to the creators of intellectual property, giving them the
opportunity for financial gain. In the United States, there are
four different ways in which individuals and organizations
can protect their intellectual property: trade secrets,
trademarks/service marks, patents, and copyrights. The
purpose of these protections is to provide creators of
intellectual property with a proper financial reward for their
efforts, while ensuring the public has access to their creations.
The fair-use doctrine is an example of a government trying to
strike the proper balance between the rights of the intellectual
property creator and the common good. Time-shifting
television programs, space-shifting music, and the Google
Books project are three important examples of fair use of
copyrighted material.
The introduction of digital technology and the Internet have
brought intellectual property issues to the forefront.
Representing audio and video content digitally means anyone
with the right equipment can make perfect copies. Broadband
Internet technology enables these copies to be quickly and
widely disseminated. The Pirate Bay is a prime example of an
organization leveraging these two technological
breakthroughs to make copyrighted material freely available.
Producers of copyrighted material have responded by trying
to shut down the Pirate Bay and putting new restrictions on
copying, even though sometimes these restrictions have made
it impossible for consumers to make copies that were
previously considered fair use. To a large extent, these efforts
have been unsuccessful. Companies trying to sell access to
movies, television shows, and songs now understand that
they need to make “doing the right thing”—obtaining a legal
copy—as easy as “doing the wrong thing.” It is now more
convenient to stream paid content than it is to get illegal
copies through the Pirate Bay.
4
Until the mid-1960s, there was no intellectual property
protection for computer software other than trade secrets.
Now, both copyrights and patents are used to protect
software. The area of software patents is highly controversial.
There are a large number of bad software patents, and many
software patents have been issued for obvious inventions.
Large corporations are stockpiling software patents, so that if
they are sued for infringing another company’s patent, they
can retaliate with their own patent-infringement countersuit.
The decision of the US Supreme Court in Alice Corporation
v. CLS Bank may prove to be a turning point. Many district
courts and federal courts have cited that decision to
invalidate hundreds of software patents.
There are both rights-based and utilitarian arguments as to
why we ought to give intellectual property protection to
software; neither of these arguments is particularly strong,
suggesting that there should be an alternative to a
conventional proprietary model of software development.
The open-source movement is such an alternative. A great
deal of the software that keeps the Internet running is opensource software. Other open-source success stories include
the Linux and Android operating systems, the Firefox
browser, and OpenOffice productivity software.
The story of the GNU Project and Linux demonstrates how
thousands of volunteers can work together to produce highquality, industrial-strength software. Why can’t the success of
GNU/Linux be replicated in the arts? Imagine a culture that
encouraged the production of new creative works from
existing works, a culture in which songs would rapidly
evolve, different versions of movies were exchanged and
compared, and hypertext novels accumulated links to fan
sites. Today’s intellectual property laws make it difficult to
achieve this vision in the entertainment field. Little can be
done with a copyrighted work without first asking for
permission, a labor-intensive process that puts a drag on
innovation. Creative Commons is an effort to streamline the
process by allowing copyright holders to indicate up front the
conditions under which they are willing to let other people
use their work.
Further Reading, Listening,
and Viewing
Kornhaber Brown. “F.A.T. Lab.” Off Book, September
13, 2011. 8:38. video.pbs.org.
Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr. “The Patent, Used as a
Sword.” New York Times, October 7, 2012.
5
David Friedman. “The First Software Patent.” PBS
Digital Studios, January 24, 2013. 4:34.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKdqJGgpcgg.
C. G. P. Grey. “Copyright: Forever Less One Day.”
6:28. www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4.
Leah Hoffmann. “Open for Business.”
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55, No. 4, April
2012.
Gwen Ifill. “How Effective Is Justice Department
Crackdown on Online Sale of Counterfeit Goods?” PBS
NewsHour, November 29, 2011. 9:13. video.pbs.org.
Steven Levy. “The Patent Problem.” Wired, December
4, 2012. www.wired.com.
Ephrat Livni, Lauren Hirsch, and Sarah Kessler. “Who
Owns a Song Created by A.I.?” New York Times, April
15, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/business/dealbook/artific
intelligence-copyright.html.
Steve Lohr. “Can A.I. Invent?” New York Times, July
15, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/15/technology/ai
inventor patents.html.
Peter S. Menell. “Design for Symbiosis.”
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55, No. 5, May
2012.
Nilay Patel. “Slide to Unlock: How Apple’s Patents Are
Changing Android.” Verge, March 6, 2012.
theverge.com.
Randal C. Picker. “The Yin and Yang of Copyright and
Technology.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55,
No. 1, January 2012.
Robert Shore. “The Art of the Steal: When Does a
Copyright Go Too Far?” New York Times, November
23, 2017. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/art
copyright beg steal borrow/index.html.
Ben Sisario. “Stolen or Original? Hear Songs From 7
Landmark Copyright Cases.” New York Times, April
27, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/27/arts/music/music
copyright lawsuits ed sheeran blurred lines.html.
Matt Stevens. “After the Warhol Decision, Another
Major Copyright Case Looms.” New York Times, May
22, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/arts/warhol
prince decision copyright.html.
Zach Weissmueller. “Too Much Copyright.”
ReasonTV (Web site), April 19, 2012. 8:57.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMl0stqai0.
“Can Fan Culture Change Society?” Off Book,
September 7, 2012. 6:49. video.pbs.org.
“Open Source Basics.” Intel Software, June 6, 2014.
5:41. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyd0FO0tko8.
“What Is Open Source?” Mozilla, April 18, 2017. 2:51.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c0IrsDsNaw.
Review Questions
1. What features of intellectual property make it more
difficult to protect than physical property?
2. What paradoxes arise when we attempt to extend
Locke’s notion of a natural right to property into the
realm of intellectual property?
3. What are the ways in which individuals or firms in the
United States may protect their intellectual property?
6
4. What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of
patents versus trade secrets?
5. The case study in Section 4.3.5 evaluates two possible
actions by Rajiv. Perform act-utilitarian evaluations of
two other actions Rajiv could take:
Option 3: Rajiv does not ask the team of software
developers to improve the design of the database
system. He allows the team to proceed with the
implementation based on the current design.
Option 4: Rajiv meets the team of software developers
implementing the database system, shares with them
the optimizations he developed at Felicity Software,
and asks the team to incorporate his optimizations into
the system.
6. When referring to copyrighted materials, what is meant
by the term “fair use”?
7. Explain how advances in information technology have
made it easier for consumers to violate copyright law.
8. How has the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
affected fair use of copyrighted material by consumers?
9. How does BitTorrent provide an order-of-magnitude
increase in downloading speed compared to earlier
peer-to-peer networks?
10. The US Supreme Court ruled that Sony was not
responsible for the copyright infringements of Betamax
customers, but Grokster and StreamCast were
responsible for the copyright infringements of those
who used their peer-to-peer networks. Explain the
differences in the two situations that led the Supreme
Court to reach opposite conclusions.
11. Briefly describe the most significant changes in the
recorded music business in the United States over the
past 15 years.
12. Suppose company A wants to develop a program that
duplicates the functionality of a program made by
company B. Describe how company A may do this
without violating the copyrights held by company B.
13. What are the differences between an open system and a
closed system? What are the advantages of each type of
system?
14. When describing a software license, what does the
phrase “open source” mean?
Discussion
Questions
15. Benjamin Franklin created many useful inventions
without any desire to receive financial reward. Is
intellectual property protection needed in order to
promote innovation?
16. Any original piece of intellectual property you have
created, such as a poem, term paper, or photograph, is
automatically copyrighted, even if you did not label it
with a copyright notice. Think about the most valuable
piece of intellectual property you have ever created.
Describe in detail the ownership rights you would like
to claim on it.
7
17. Do you support the aims of the Google Books project?
Does this initiative give Google too much power?
18. How does the debate over digital music illuminate the
differences among ethics, morality, and law?
19. Is the concept of digital rights management doomed to
failure?
20. What does the US Supreme Court decision in MGM v.
Grokster mean for the development of future peer-topeer network technologies?
21. The current legal system allows both proprietary
software and open-source software to be distributed.
What are the pros and cons of maintaining the status
quo?
22. Examine the analyses of Section 4.8 regarding the
legitimacy of providing intellectual property protection
for software. Do these arguments apply equally well to
the question of providing intellectual property
protection for music? Why or why not?
23. Should copyright laws protect musical compositions?
Should copyright laws protect recordings of musical
performances?
24. Is it hopeless to try to protect intellectual property in
digital media?
In-Class Exercises
25. A plane makes an emergency crash landing on a
deserted tropical island. Two dozen survivors must
fend for themselves until help arrives. All of them are
from large cities and none of them has camping
experience. The survivors find it impossible to gather
enough food, and everyone begins losing weight. One
person spends a lot of time alone and figures out how
to catch fish. They bring fish back to the camp. Others
ask them to teach them how to catch fish. They refuse
but offer to share the fish they have caught with the
other passengers as long as they take care of the other
camp chores, such as hauling fresh water, gathering
firewood, and cooking.
Divide the class into groups of about four persons each.
Half the groups should come up with reasons why the
fisherman’s position is morally wrong, and the
remaining groups should come up with reasons why the
fisherman’s position is morally acceptable. After a
reasonable amount of time, the teams should take turns
sharing their reasons with the rest of the class.
26. Survey 10 of your peers with these questions. How
many own CDs? How many own DVDs? How many
rely entirely upon streaming for watching videos and
listening to music? Share the results with your
classmates.
27. Research your university’s policy on bandwidth abuse
and file sharing. What kinds of activities are explicitly
forbidden? Is the policy sensible?
8
References
[1] Jordan Simon. “Jimmy Fallon and Addison Rae under
Fire for Segment on TikTok Dances, Mostly from Black
Creators.” Shadow and Act, March 30, 2021.
https://shadowandact.com/jimmy-fallon-and-addisonrae-under-fire-for- segment-on-tiktok-dances-mostlyfrom-black-creators.
[2] Marianne Garvey. “Jimmy Fallon Responds to
Backlash over Addison Rae TikTok Dance Segment.”
CNN, April 6, 2021.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/06/entertainment/jimmyfallon-addison-raes-tiktok/index.html.
[3] “Cell Phones Taking Center Stage at Concerts.”
RedOrbit (Web site), May 16, 2008.
www.redorbit.com.
[4] Aditya Ramesh, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alex Nichol, Casey
Chu, and Mark Chen. “Hierarchical Text Conditional
Image Generation with CLIP Latents.” ArXiv:
2204.06125, April 13, 2022.
[5] Simmone Shaw. “Netflix Is Cracking Down on
Password Sharing in the U.S. Here’s What to Know.”
TIME, May 26, 2023.
https://time.com/6282750/netflix-password-sharinghousehold-rules/.
[6] World Intellectual Property Organization. “What Is
Intellectual Property?” Accessed September 30, 2017.
www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_45
[7] John Locke. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 1988.
[8] Michael J. Scanlan. “Locke and Intellectual Property
Rights.” In Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked
World, edited by Richard A. Spinello and Herman T.
Tavani, pp. 83–98. Information Science Publishing,
Hershey, PA, 2005.
[9] Edmund S. Morgan. Benjamin Franklin. Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT, 2002.
[10] Randolph P. Luck. “Letter to The Honorable Senator
Spencer Abraham.” Luck’s Music Library, June 28,
1996.
[11] Justice Breyer, dissenting. Supreme Court of the United
States. Eric Eldred, et al. v. John D. Ashcroft, No. 01618 (January 15, 2003).
[12] Kembrew McLeod. Freedom of Expression(R):
Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of
Creativity. Doubleday, New York, NY, 2005.
[13] Lawrence Lessig. “The Same Old Song.” Wired, July
2005.
[14] “Happy Birthday, We’ll Sue.” Snopes.com (Web site).
Urban legends reference pages, April 27, 2007.
www.snopes.com.
[15] Robert Brauneis. “Copyright and the World’s Most
Popular Song.” GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No.
1111624, George Washington University Law School,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2008.
[16] US District Court, Southern District of New York.
Good Morning to You Productions Corp., On Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. (June 13, 2013).
9
[17] US District Court, Central District of California. Good
Morning to You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell
Music, Inc. CV 13-04460-GHK (June 30, 2016).
[18] Bernard Weinraub. “Art Buchwald Awarded $150,000
in Suit Over Film.” New York Times, page C13, Vol.
CXLI, No. 48908, March 17, 1992.
[19] US Patent and Trademark Office. “Trademark Basics.”
Accessed October 1, 2017. www.uspto.gov/trademarksgetting-started/trademark-basics.
[20] US Patent and Trademark Office. “Trademark
Process.” Accessed October 1, 2017.
www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademarkprocess.
[21] “General Trademark Guidelines.” Adobe Systems Inc.
Accessed October 5, 2013.
www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html.
[22] International Trade Association, US Department of
Commerce. “How Do I Obtain a Patent?” July 7, 2016.
www.stopfakes.gov/article?id=How-Do-I-Obtain-aPatent.
[23] “AT&T’s History of Invention and Breakups.” New
York Times, February 13, 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/12/technology/at
history.html.
[24] United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Polaroid Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eastman
Kodak Company, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal No. 86604. 789 F.2d 1556 (April 25, 1986).
[25] Lawrence Edelman. “Kodak Pays Polaroid $925M; Part
of a Surprise Out-of-Court Settlement Ends 15-Year
Legal Hassle.” Boston Globe, July 16, 1991.
[26] Kim Peterson. “Microsoft Eases Its Rules for Access to
Technology.” Seattle Times, December 4, 2003.
[27] Agfa Monotype Corp. “Agfa Monotype Licenses
ClearType from Microsoft” (press release). December
12, 2003. whattheythink.com/news/20333-agfamonotype-licenses-cleartype- microsoft/.
[28] International Intellectual Property Alliance. “Copyright
Industries in the U.S. Economy: 2022 Report.”
Washington, DC, December 2022. www.iipa.org.
[29] United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Gershwin Publishing Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Columbia Artists Management, Inc., DefendantAppellant, and Community Concerts, Inc., Defendant,
443 F.2d 1159 (May 24, 1971).
[30] “Millbury Man Pleads Guilty in ‘Davey Jones’
Computer Case.” Worcester Telegram & Gazette,
December 16, 1994.
[31] Siva Vaidhyanathan. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The
Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens
Creativity. New York University Press, New York, NY,
2001.
[32] Suzanne Fields. “Free Mickey Mouse (and Robert
Frost).” Jewish World Review, January 24, 2003.
[33] Chris Sprigman. “The Mouse That Ate the Public
Domain: Disney, the Copyright Term Extension Act,
and Eldred v. Ashcroft.” FindLaw Legal News and
Commentary, March 5, 2002. writ.news.findlaw.com.
0
[34] “Brief for Petitioners.” Supreme Court of the United
States. Eric Eldred et al. v. John D. Ashcroft, in his
official capacity as Attorney General. 2002.
[35] “Eldred v. Ashcroft: A Primer.” WashingtonPost.com,
January 15, 2003.
[36] Supreme Court of the United States. Eldred et al. v.
Ashcroft, Attorney General, 239 F.3d 372, affirmed
(January 15, 2003).
[37] “Beeple’s NFT Digital Arft Nets £50m at Christie’s
Auction.” BBC News, March 11, 2021.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56362174.
[38] “What Are NFTs and Why Are Some Worth Millions?”
BBC News, December 16, 2022.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56371912.
[39] “Employee Confidentiality and Proprietary Rights
Agreement (CA).” Practical Law (Web site). Accessed
August 7, 2015. practicallaw.com/3-518-4653.
[40] Kathleen Amen, Tish Keogh, and Necia Wolff. “Digital
Copyright.” Computers in Libraries, May 2002.
[41] Elina M. Lae. “Mashups—a Protected Form of
Appropriation Art or a Blatant Copyright
Infringement?” SSRN (Web site), December 2011.
papers.ssrn.com.
[42] Supreme Court of the United States. Sony Corporation
of America et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al.,
464 US 417 (January 17, 1984).
[43] United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Leslie A. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 336 F.3d
811 (July 7, 2003).
[44] “About Google Books.” Accessed August 13, 2009.
books.google.com/intl/en/googlebooks/about.html.
[45] US District Court, Southern District of New York.
Authors Guild et al. v. Google Inc., 05 CIV 8136
(September 20, 2005).
[46] US District Court, Southern District of New York.
McGraw-Hill Companies et al. v. Google Inc., 05 CV
8881 (October 19, 2005).
[47] US District Court, Southern District of New York.
Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc., 1:05-cv08136-DC (November 14, 2013).
[48] Corynne McSherry. “Court Upholds Legality of Google
Books: Tremendous Victory for Fair Use and the Public
Interest” (press release). Electronic Frontier
Foundation, November 14, 2013. www.eff.org.
[49] US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
Authors Guild et al. v. Google, Inc., 13-4829-cv
(October 16, 2015).
[50] US Supreme Court. Orders in Pending Cases, Order
List: 578 U.S. (April 18, 2016).
[51] Steven Andersen. “How Piracy, Culture and High-Tech
Hackers Brought the Recording Industry to Its Knees.”
Corporate Legal Times, November 2002.
[52] David Goldman. “Music’s Lost Decade: Sales Cut in
Half.” CNNMoney, February 3, 2010. money.cnn.com.
[53] Christopher May. “Digital Rights Management and the
Breakdown of Social Norms.” First Monday, Vol. 8,
No. 11, November 2003.
1
[54] Royal Van Horn. “The Digital Millennium Copyright
Act and Other Egregious Laws.” Phi Delta Kappan,
November 2002.
[55] Kelly McCollum and Peter Schmidt. “How Forcefully
Should Universities Enforce Copyright Law on Audio
Files?” Chronicle of Higher Education, November 11,
1999.
[56] Ron Harris. “Where’s SDMI? Digital Music Protection
Effort Flames Out.” Associated Press, April 29, 2002.
[57] Kevin Coughlin. “Cyber Music Makers Seek to Gag
Code-Breakers.” Newhouse News Service, April 24,
2001.
[58] John Markoff. “Scientists Drop Plan to Present MusicCopying Study That Record Industry Opposed.” New
York Times, April 27, 2001.
[59] “A Speed Bump vs. Music Copying: Master
Cryptographer—and Code Cracker—Edward Felten
Says Technology Isn’t the Answer to Digital Copyright
Violations.” Business Week Online, January 9, 2002.
[60] “FAQ: Sony’s ‘Rootkit’ CDs.” CNet News (Web site),
November 21, 2005. news.cnet.com.
[61] “Sony BMG Settlement FAQ.” Electronic Frontier
Foundation. Accessed September 29, 2015.
www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG.
[62] Selena Kim. “The Reinforcement of International
Copyright for the Digital Age.” Intellectual Property
Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 93–122, 2003.
[63] Tom Espiner. “British Library Calls for Digital
Copyright Action.” CNet News (Web site), September
25, 2006. news.cnet.com.
[64] Ali Matin. “Digital Rights Management (DRM) in
Online Music Stores: DRM-Encumbered Music
Downloads’ Inevitable Demise as a Result of the
Negative Effects of Heavy-Handed Copyright Law.”
Entertainment Law Review, Vol. 28, Loyola Law
School, Los Angeles, CA, 2008.
[65] Michael Arrington. “EMI, Apple to Sell DRM-Free
Music for $1.29/Song.” Tech-Crunch, April 2, 2007.
techcrunch.com.
[66] Jacqui Cheng. “Amazon Rounds Out DRM-Free Music
Offering with Sony BMG.” Ars Technica (Web site),
January 10, 2008. arstechnica.com.
[67] “iTunes Store and DRM-Free Music: What You Need
to Know.” MacWorld, January 7, 2009.
www.macworld.com.
[68] Marc Whitten. Letter to Xbox Live members, June 10,
2013. news.xbox.com.
[69] Michael Rundle. “Microsoft Unveils Xbox One Privacy
and Digital Rights Details Ahead of E3.” Huffington
Post UK, June 7, 2013. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk.
[70] William Usher. “PS4 Grabs 95 Percent of Consumer
Votes After Amazon Ends Poll Early.” CinemaBlend
(Web site), June 16, 2013. www.cinemablend.com.
[71] Don Mattrick. “Your Feedback Matters—Update on
Xbox One.” Xbox Wire, June 19, 2013.
news.xbox.com.
2
[72] Danielle Roy. “Napster Timeline.” IDG News Service,
Boston Bureau, April 2, 2001.
[73] Nathan Ruegger. “Napster Withers Away, but Peer-toPeer Legacy Remains.” Dartmouth, October 3, 2002.
[74] Ron Harris. “Bankruptcy Judge Blocks Sale of Napster
to Bertelsmann.” Associated Press, September 4, 2002.
[75] Reuters. “Music Industry Sends Warnings to Song
Swappers.” NYTimes.com, April 29, 2003.
[76] Phil Hardy. “Verizon Agrees to Give the RIAA the
Names of Four Subscribers Alleged to Be File-Sharing
Copyrighted Works.” Music & Copyright, June 11,
2003.
[77] Sara Calabro. “RIAA Lawsuits—Music Industry
Mistakes Its Lawsuits for a PR Maneuver.” PR Week,
September 22, 2003.
[78] Phil Hardy. “Media Reaction to RIAA’s New Round of
Lawsuits Less Hostile but Grassroots Opposition
Grows.” Music & Copyright, October 29, 2003.
[79] John Schwartz. “Record Industry May Not Subpoena
Online Providers.” NYTimes.com, December 19, 2003.
[80] Kevin Fitchard. “Verizon Gains Upper Hand in RIAA
Subpoena Ruling.” Telephony, January 12, 2004.
[81] Mary Madden and Lee Rainie. “Music and Video
Downloading Moves Beyond P2P.” Report, Pew
Internet & American Life Project, March 23, 2005.
www.pewinternet.org/reports.
[82] Mike Harvey. “Single-Mother Digital Pirate Jammie
Thomas-Rasset Must Pay $80,000 per Song.” Sunday
Times, June 19, 2009. www.thesundaytimes.co.uk.
[83] United States District Court, District of Minnesota.
Capitol Records, Inc., et al. v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset,
06-1497 (MJD/LIB) (July 22, 2011).
[84] Denise Lavoie. “Joel Tenenbaum: Jury Awards
$675,000 in Boston Music Downloading Case.”
Huffington Post, July 31, 2009.
www.huffingtonpost.com.
[85] United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Sony BMG Music Entertainment;
Warner Bros. Records Inc.; Atlantic Recording Corp.;
Arista Records LLC; and UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Joel
Tenenbaum, 07cv11446-NG (July 9, 2010).
[86] Fred von Lohmann. “Offering to Distribute =
Distribution, Says Court in Elektra v. Barker.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 1, 2008.
www.eff.org.
[87] Fred von Lohmann. “Making Available Is Not
Distribution, Says Court in London-Shire v. Doe.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 2, 2008.
www.eff.org.
[88] Fred von Lohmann. “Big Victory in Atlantic v. Howell:
Court Rejects RIAA ‘Making Available’ Theory.”
Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 29, 2008.
www.eff.org.
3
[89] John Borland. “Judge: File-Swapping Tools Are Legal.”
CNet News (Web site), April 25, 2003. news.cnet.com.
[90] Supreme Court of the United States. Metro-GoldwynMayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al., 545
US (June 27, 2005).
[91] John Borland. “Last Waltz for Grokster.” CNet News
(Web site), November 7, 2005. news.cnet.com.
[92] Clive Thompson. “The BitTorrent Effect.” Wired, p.
150, January 2005.
[93] Krysten Crawford. “BitTorrent as Friend, Not Foe.”
CNN.com, April 30, 2005.
[94] “Authorities Strike Back at ‘Star Wars’ Pirates.”
Associated Press, May 25, 2005.
[95] Jenny Stiernstedt, Astrid E. Johansson, and Fredrik
Söderling. Translated by Oliver Grassman. “The Pirate
Bay Sentenced to One Year in Prison.” Kultur & Nöje
(Sweden), April 17, 2009. www.dn.se.
[96] David Sarno. “The Internet Sure Loves Its Outlaws.”
Los Angeles Times, April 29, 2007.
[97] “Police Cleared of Wrongdoing in Pirate Bay Raid.”
Local (Sweden), April 2, 2007. www.thelocal.se.
[98] Nate Anderson. “Pirate Bay on IFPI Lawsuit: Labels
Can ‘Go Screw Themselves.’” Ars Technica (Web site),
April 1, 2008. arstechnica.com.
[99] Associated Press. “Swedish Court Upholds Convictions
in File-Sharing Case.” New York Times, November 26,
2010. www.nytimes.com.
[100] “‘Operation In Our Sites’ Targets Internet Movie
Pirates.” US Department of Homeland Security, June
30, 2010. www.ice.gov.
[101] “Operation In Our Sites Protects American Online
Shoppers, Cracks Down on Counterfeiters.” US
Department of Homeland Security, November 28,
2011. www.ice.gov.
[102] United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. United States of America v. Kim Dotcom et
al., [2012] NZHC 2076 (January 5, 2012).
[103] Geoffrey A. Fowler, Devlin Barrett, and Sam Schechner.
“US Shuts Offshore File-Share ‘Locker.’” Wall Street
Journal, January 20, 2012.
[104] Chloe Albanesius. “After Megaupload, FileSonic
Disables File Sharing.” PC Magazine, January 23,
2012.
[105] Nate Lanxon. “FileSonic, FileServe Pull Fire-Sharing
Services Following Megaupload Arrests.” Wired.co.uk,
January 23, 2012. wired.co.uk.
[106] Christopher Kauffman. Private communication, March
2015.
[107] Shelley Hepworth. “Streaming Spells the End of the
‘Ownership Era of Music’ but Are We Ready to Let
Go?” Guardian, February 1, 2020.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/feb/02/streamingspells-the-end- of-the-ownership-era-of-music-but-arewe-ready-to-let-go.
4
[108] IFPI. “IFPI Global Music Report 2023.” Accessed July
10, 2023. https://globalmusicreport.ifpi.org/.
[109] Julia Stoll. “SVOD Service Users Shares in the U.S.
2015-2022.” Statista, October 14, 2022.
www.statista.com.
[110] US District Court for the Northern District of
California. Oracle America, Inc., v. Google Inc., 872
F.Supp.2d 974 (May 31, 2012).
[111] US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Oracle America,
Inc., v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (May 9, 2014).
[112] Joe Mullin. “Google Beats Oracle—Android Makes
‘Fair Use’ of Java APIs.” Ars Technica (Web site), May
26, 2016. www.arstechnica.com.
[113] US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oracle
America, Inc., v. Google LLC. 2017-1118, 2017-1202
(March 27, 2018).
[114] Daniel A. Tysver. “The History of Software Patents:
From Benson and Diehr to State Street and Bilski.”
BitLaw (Web site). Accessed August 14, 2011.
www.bitlaw.com.
[115] Rob Tiller. “The PTO Addresses Bilski and Software
Patents.” Opensource.com, September 30, 2010.
opensource.com.
[116] “Microsoft Patent Portfolio Tops IT Industry
Scorecards.” Microsoft News Center, January 28,
2008. www.microsoft.com.
[117] Michael Kanellos. “Patent Auctions: Lawyer’s Dream
or Way of the Future?” ZDNet News, March 3, 2006.
web.archive.org.
[118] Matthew Sag and Kurt Rohde. “Patent Reform and
Differential Policy.” Northwestern Law & Econ
Research Paper No. 925722, Chicago, IL, August 21,
2006. papers.ssrn.com.
[119] Barrie McKenna, Paul Waldie, and Simon Avery.
“Patently Absurd.” Globe and Mail, February 21,
2006. www.theglobeandmail.com.
[120] Rob Kelley. “BlackBerry Maker, NTP Ink $612 Million
Settlement.” CNNMoney, March 3, 2006.
money.cnn.com.
[121] Charles Duhigg and Steve Lohr. “The Patent, Used as a
Sword.” New York Times, October 7, 2012.
www.nytimes.com.
[122] Larry Downes. “The Bilski Case and the Future of
Software Patents.” Center for Internet and Society,
November 11, 2009. cyberlaw.stanford.edu.
[123] Nilay Patel. “Nokia vs. Apple: The In-Depth Analysis.”
Engadget (blog), October 29, 2009.
www.engadget.com.
[124] Nilay Patel. “Apple Countersues Nokia for Infringing
13 Patents.” Engadget (blog), December 11, 2009.
www.engadget.com.
[125] US District Court, Northern District of California.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., CV 11
1846 LB (April 15, 2011).
[126] Florian Mueller. “Apple Seeks $2.5 Billion in Damages
from Samsung, Offers Half a Cent per StandardEssential Patent.” Foss Patents (blog), July 24, 2012.
www.fosspatents.com.
5
[127] Kurt Eichenwald. “The Great Smartphone War.”
Vanity Fair, June 2014.
[128] Nilay Patel. “Slide to Unlock: How Apple’s Patents Are
Changing Android.” Verge, March 6, 2012.
www.theverge.com.
[129] Matt Rosoff. “The Smartphone Patent Wars Are Finally
Coming to an End.” Business Insider, December 23,
2014. www.businessinsider.com.
[130] Lance Whitney. “Samsung Willing to Pay Apple $548M
over Patent Claims, but Fight Drags On.” CNet News
(Web site), December 4, 2015. www.cnet.com.
[131] Malcolm Owen. “Samsung Owes Apple $539M for
Infringing on iPhone Patents, Jury Finds.” Apple Insider
(Web site), May 24, 2018. appleinsider.com.
[132] Supreme Court of the United States. Alice Corporation
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 US —, Docket
No. 13-298 (June 19, 2014).
[133] The United States Patent and Trademark Office. “2106
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-08.2017].” January
24, 2018. Accessed March 27, 2018.
www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html.
[134] Robert L. Maier. “Will Any Software Patents Survive?”
New York Law Journal, November 21, 2017.
www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/.
[135] Joe Mullin. “East Texas Judge Throws Out 168 Patent
Cases in One Fell Swoop.” Ars Technica (Web site),
October 1, 2015. artstechnical.com.
[136] United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division. Edekka LLC v. 3Balls.com,
Inc., et al. 2:15-CV-585 JRG (September 21, 2015).
[137] Robert R. Sachs. “One Year Anniversary: The
Aftermath of #Alicestorm.” Bilskiblog: Analysis and
Commentary on Patent Eligibility and Patent Strategy,
June 20, 2015. www.bilskiblog.com.
[138] Fenwick and West Intellectual Property Group. “Two
Years After Alice: A Survey of the Impact of a ‘Minor
Case.’” Bilskiblog: Analysis and Commentary on Patent
Eligibility and Patent Strategy, June 16, 2016.
www.bilskiblog.com.
[139] United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Richard A. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, et al. 792
F. 3d 1339 (June 16, 2015).
[140] Paula Samuelson. “Legally Speaking: Software Patents
Are Falling Down.” Communications of the ACM, Vol
58(11), pp. 27–29, November 2015.
[141] Helen Nissenbaum. “Should I Copy My Neighbor’s
Software?” In Computers, Ethics, & Social Values,
edited by Deborah G. Johnson and Helen Nissenbaum.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
[142] “A Brief History of Software Licensing.” Licenseware
(Web site), January 16, 2023. https://licenseware.io/abrief-history-of-software-licensing/.
[143] Richard P. Stallman. “Why Software Should Not Have
Owners.” GNU Project Web server, June 17, 2003.
www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html.
[144] “The Open Source Definition.” Open Source Initiative,
2003. www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
[145] Carolyn A. Kenwood. “A Business Case Study of Open
Source Software.” Technical report, MITRE
Corporation, Bedford, MA, July 2001.
6
[146] Andrew Leonard. “Let My Software Go!” Salon (Web
site), April 14, 1998. www.salon.com.
[147] “Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide:
June 2022–June 2023.” StatCounter. Accessed July 10,
2023. gs.statcounter.com.
[148] “Browser Market Share Worldwide: June 2022–June
2023.” Statcounter. Accessed July 10, 2023.
gs.statcounter.com.
[149] Stephen Shankland. “Study Lauds Open-Source Code
Quality.” CNet News (Web site), February 19, 2003.
news.cnet.com.
[150] Richard P. Stallman. “Linux and the GNU Project.”
GNU Project Web server, December 14, 2002.
www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.
[151] Sean Michael Kerner. “LinuxCon Analysts: Linux Is
Winning.” Datamation, August 12, 2010.
www.datamation.com.
[152] Thomas Alsop. “Distribution of the Top 500
Supercomputers Worldwide 2017-2022, by OS.”
Statista, February 27, 2023. www.statista.com.
[153] Creative Commons, Stanford Law School. Get Creative
(movie), 2002. www.creativecommons.org.
[154] Lawrence Lessig. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the
Commons in a Connected World. Random House, New
York, NY, 2001.
[155] “Explore / Creative Commons.” Flickr (Web site).
Accessed July 10, 2023.
www.flickr.com/creativecommons/.
Chapter 5
Information
Privacy
7
5.1 Introduction
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE I LIVE? IF YOU
VISIT THE THATSTHEM.COM Web site and type in my
name and city, it returns a page giving my address. Type the
address you just learned from ThatsThem.com into Google
Maps, and it will show you a map of my neighborhood and a
view of my house from the street.
Spend a few seconds more, and you can learn a lot about my
standard of living. Go to Zillow.com and enter my address.
Zillow dutifully returns the estimated value of my house,
based on public records that document its size and assessed
value.
If you become a friend of one of my friends on Facebook,
you can get even more glimpses into my personal life by
viewing photos of me that other people have posted and
tagged. You can see me lounging by a swimming pool at a
family reunion, juggling croquet balls, unwrapping a
Christmas present, and walking my daughter Shauna down
the aisle on her wedding day.
Scott McNealy, former CEO of Sun Microsystems, caused
quite a stir when he said, “You have zero privacy anyway.
Get over it” [1]. You can’t deny that computers, databases,
and the Internet have made it easier than ever to get lots of
information about total strangers. Still, many of us would
like to think that we can keep some things private.
A woman in Portland, Oregon, was incredulous when an
employee of her husband called from Seattle to tell her he
had received a message containing an audio recording of a
conversation from inside her house. She and her husband
didn’t believe the employee until he correctly related details
of their conversation about hardwood floors. It turns out the
private conversation had been sent by an Amazon Echo
personal assistant, which had mistakenly determined that
someone had said “Alexa,” mistakenly heard a “send
message” request, mistakenly heard the name of the
employee in her husband’s phone’s contacts list as the person
to whom the message was supposed to be sent, and
mistakenly heard the confirmation word “right” when it
asked if it had the correct recipient of the message [2].
Is it possible to maintain privacy in the Information Age? In
this chapter we focus on privacy issues related to the
introduction of information technology. We begin by taking
a philosophical look at privacy. What is privacy exactly? Do
we have a natural right to privacy in the same way that we
have the right to own property and the right to liberty? What
about our need to know enough about others so that we can
trust them? How do we handle conflicts between the right to
privacy and the right to free expression?
8
We then survey some of the ways that we leave an “electronic
trail” of information behind us as we go about our daily
lives. Both private organizations and governments construct
databases documenting our activities.
Next, we take a look at data mining, an important tool for
building profiles of individuals and communities. Companies
use data mining to improve service and target product
marketing to the right consumers. Data brokers collect
massive amounts of information about individuals and
produce mailing lists for direct marketers.
Sometimes corporations push on the borders of personal
privacy a little too hard; we look at a few examples where
they have had to retreat because of a consumer or political
backlash.
5.2 Perspectives on
Privacy
In this section we explore what the word “privacy” means,
survey some positive and negative consequences of granting
people privacy, and discuss whether privacy is a natural right,
like the right to life.
5.2.1 Defining Privacy
Philosophers struggle to define privacy. Discussions about
privacy revolve around the notion of access, where access
means either physical proximity to a person or knowledge
about that person. There is a tug-of-war between the desires,
rights, and responsibilities of a person who wants to restrict
access to himself, and the desires, rights, and responsibilities
of outsiders to gain access.
From the point of view of an individual seeking to restrict
access, privacy is a “zone of inaccessibility” that surrounds a
person [3]. You have privacy to the extent that you can
control who is allowed into your zone of inaccessibility. For
example, you exercise your privacy when you lock the door
behind you when using the toilet. You also exercise your
privacy when you choose not to tell your parent the name of
the person you are dating. However, privacy is not the same
thing as being alone. Two people can have a private
relationship. It might be a physical relationship, in which
each person lets the other person become physically close
while excluding others, or it might be an intellectual
relationship, in which they exchange texts containing private
thoughts.
When we look at privacy from the point of view of outsiders
seeking access, the discussion revolves around where to draw
the line between what is private and what is public (known to
all). Stepping over this line and violating someone’s privacy is
an affront to that person’s dignity [4]. For example, suppose
a friend invites you to see a cool movie trailer available on
the Web. You follow them into the computer lab. They sit
down at an available computer and begin to type in their
login name and password. While it is their responsibility to
keep their password confidential, it is also generally accepted
that you ought to avert your eyes when someone is typing in
their password. Another person’s password is not something
that you are supposed to know.
9
On the other hand, society can be harmed if individuals have
too much privacy. Suppose a group of wealthy people of the
same racial, ethnic, and religious background forms a private
club. The members of the club share information with each
other that is not available to the general public. If the club
facilitates business deals among its members, it may give
them an unfair advantage over others in the community who
are just as capable of fulfilling the contracts. In this way,
privacy can encourage social and economic inequities, and
the public at large might benefit if the group had less privacy
(or its membership were more diverse).
Here is another example of a public/private conflict, but this
one focuses on the privacy of an individual. Most of us
distinguish between a person’s “private life” (what they do at
home) and their “public life” (what they do at work). In
general, we may agree that people have the right to keep
outsiders from knowing what they do away from work.
However, suppose a journalist learns that a wealthy
candidate for high public office has lost millions of dollars
gambling in Las Vegas. Does the public interest outweigh the
politician’s desire for privacy in this case?
In summary, privacy is a social arrangement that allows
individuals to have some level of control over who is able to
gain access to their physical selves and their personal
information.
5.2.2 Harms and Benefits of
Privacy
A little reflection reveals that privacy can have both harmful
and beneficial consequences.
Harms of Privacy
Giving people privacy can result in harm to society. Some
people take advantage of privacy to plan and carry out illegal
or immoral activities. Most wrongdoing takes place under the
cover of privacy [5].
Some commentators suggest that increasing privacy has
caused unhappiness by putting too great a burden on the
nuclear family to care for all of its members. In the past
people received moral support not just from their immediate
family but also from other relatives and neighbors. Today, by
contrast, in some cultures, families are expected to solve their
own problems, which puts a great strain on some individuals
[6].
On a related note, family violence leads to much pain and
suffering in some societies. Often, outsiders do not even
acknowledge that a family is dysfunctional until one of its
members is seriously injured. One reason dysfunctional
families in some societies can maintain the pretense of
normality as long as they do is because the culture respects
the privacy of each family [7].
Humans are social beings. Most of us seek some engagement
with others. Sadly, some people may lack sufficient
engagement with others because their community
marginalizes or excludes them.
Benefits of Privacy
Socialization and individuation are both necessary steps for a
person to reach maturity. Privacy is necessary for a person to
blossom as an individual [8].
0
Privacy is the way in which a social group recognizes and
communicates to the individual that they are responsible for
their development as a unique person, a separate moral agent
[9]. Privacy is a recognition of each person’s true freedom
[10].
Privacy is valuable because it lets us be ourselves. Consider
the following example. Imagine someone is in a park playing
with their child. How would their behavior be different if
they knew someone else was carefully watching them,
perhaps even recording them, so that they could tell others
about the person's parenting skills? They might well become
self-conscious about their behavior. Few people would be
able to carry on without any change to their emotional state
or physical actions [11].
On a similar note, privacy lets us remove our public persona
[12]. Imagine a sales representative who is having a hard time
with one of her company’s important clients. At work, she
must be polite to the client and scrupulously avoid saying
anything negative about the client in front of any coworkers,
lest she demoralize them, or even worse, lose her job. In the
privacy of her home, she can “blow off steam” by confiding
in her spouse, who lends her a sympathetic ear and helps
motivate her to get through the tough time at work. If people
did not have privacy, they would have to wear their public
face at all times, which could be damaging to their
psychological health.
Privacy can foster intellectual activities. It allows us to shut
out the rest of the world so that we can focus our thoughts
without interruption, be creative, and grow spiritually [13,
14, 15].
Some maintain that privacy is the only way in which people
can develop relationships involving respect, love, friendship,
and trust. You can think of privacy as “moral capital” [16].
People use this capital to build intimate relationships. Taking
away people’s privacy means taking away their moral capital.
Without moral capital, they have no means to develop close
personal relationships.
In order to have different kinds of social relationships with
different people, we need to have some kind of control over
who knows what about us [17]. You can imagine everyone
having a “ladder” of privacy [11]. At the top of the ladder is
the person we share the most information with. For many
people, this person is their partner, husband, or wife. As we
work our way down the ladder, we encounter people we
would share progressively less information with.
Others are critical of suggestions that tie intimacy too closely
to sharing information [9]. A patient might tell their
psychoanalyst things they would not even reveal to their
romantic partner, but that does not imply that they
experience deeper intimacy with their psychoanalyst than
with their partner. Intimacy is not just about sharing
information; it’s also about caring. The mutual caring that
characterizes a healthy life partnership results in a greater
level of intimacy than can be gained simply by sharing
personal information.
Summary
To summarize our discussion, allowing people to have some
privacy has a variety of beneficial effects. Granting people
privacy is one way that society recognizes them as adults and
indicates they are responsible for their own moral behavior.
Privacy helps people to develop as individuals and to truly be
themselves. It provides people the opportunity to shut out the
world, be more creative, and develop spiritually. It allows
each of us to create different kinds of relationships with
different people.
Privacy also has numerous harmful effects. It provides people
with a way of covering up actions that are immoral or illegal.
If a society sends a message that certain kinds of information
must be kept private, some people caught in abusive or
dysfunctional relationships may feel trapped and unable to
ask others for help.
1
Weighing these benefits and harms, we conclude that
granting people at least some privacy is better than denying
people any privacy at all. That leads us to our next question:
Is privacy a natural right, like the right to life?
5.2.3 Is There a Natural
Right to Privacy?
Most of us agree that every person has certain natural rights,
such as the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to
own property. Many people also talk about our right to
privacy. Is this a natural right as well?
Privacy Rights Evolve from Property Rights
People's belief in a right to privacy may have grown out of
their property rights [8]. For example, historically, Europeans
have viewed the home as a sanctuary. The English commonlaw tradition has been that “a man’s home is his castle.” No
one—not even the king—can enter without permission,
unless there is probable cause of criminal activity.
In 1765 the British Parliament passed the Quartering Act,
which required American colonies to provide British soldiers
with accommodations in taverns, inns, and unoccupied
buildings. After the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the British
Parliament attempted to restore order in the colonies by
passing the Coercive Acts. One of these acts amended the
Quartering Act to allow the billeting of soldiers in private
homes, breaking the centuries-old common-law tradition and
infuriating many colonists. It’s not surprising, then, that
Americans restored the principle of home as sanctuary in the
Bill of Rights.
Third Amendment to the
United States Constitution
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in
any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor
in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.
In certain villages in the Basque region of Spain, each house is
named after the person who originally constructed it.
Villagers refer to people by their house names, even if the
family living in the house has no relation to the family
originally dwelling there.
These examples show a strong link between a person and
their property. From this viewpoint, privacy is seen in terms
of control over personal territory, and privacy rights evolve
out of property rights.
Warren and Brandeis: Clearly, People Have a
Right to Privacy
We can see this evolution laid out in a highly influential
paper, published in 1890, by Samuel Warren and Louis
Brandeis. Samuel Warren was a Harvard-educated lawyer
who became a businessman when he inherited a paper
manufacturing business. His wife was the daughter of a US
senator and a leading socialite in Boston. Her parties
attracted the upper crust of Boston society. They also
attracted the attention of the Saturday Evening Gazette, a
tabloid that delighted in shocking its readers with lurid
details about the lives of the Boston Brahmins.1 Fuming at
the paper’s coverage of his daughter’s wedding, Warren
enlisted the aid of Harvard classmate Louis Brandeis, a highly
successful Boston attorney (and future US Supreme Court
justice). Together Warren and Brandeis published an article
in the Harvard Law Review called “The Right to Privacy”
[18]. In their highly influential paper, Warren and Brandeis
argue that political, social, and economic changes demand
recognition for new kinds of legal rights. In particular, they
write that it is clear that people in modern society have a
right to privacy and that this right ought to be respected. To
make their case, they focus on—as you might have guessed—
abuses in newspapers.
2
According to Warren and Brandeis:
The press is overstepping in every direction the obvious bounds of
propriety and of decency. Gossip is no longer the resource of the
idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued
with industry as well as effrontery. To satisfy the prurient taste the
details of sexual relations are spread broadcast in the columns of
the daily papers. . . . The intensity and complexity of life,
attendant upon advancing civilization, have rendered necessary
some retreat from the world, and man, under the refining
influence of culture, has become more sensitive to publicity, so
that solitude and privacy have become more essential to the
individual; but modern enterprise and invention have, through
invasions upon his privacy, subjected him to mental pain and
distress, far greater than could be inflicted by mere bodily injury.
[18, p. 196]
Meanwhile, Warren and Brandeis argue, there are no
adequate legal remedies available to the victims. Laws against
libel and slander are not sufficient because they do not
address the situation where malicious but true stories about
someone are circulated. Laws addressing property rights also
fall short because they assume people have control over the
ways in which information about them is revealed. However,
cameras and other devices are capable of capturing
information about a person without that person’s consent
(Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1
Warren and Brandeis argued that the legal system should protect people’s
“right to be let alone.”
(PhamousFotos/Splash News/Newscom)
Warren and Brandeis pointed out that the right to privacy
had already been recognized by French law. They urged the
American legal system to recognize the right to privacy,
which they called “the right to be let alone” [18]. Their
reasoning was highly influential. Though it took decades, the
right to privacy is now recognized in courts across America
[19].
Thomson: Every “Privacy Right” Violation Is
a Violation of Another Right
Judith Jarvis Thomson has a completely different view about
a right to privacy. She writes: “Perhaps the most striking
thing about the right to privacy is that nobody seems to have
any very clear idea what it is” [20]. Thomson points out
problems with defining privacy as “the right to be let alone,”
as Warren and Brandeis have done. In some respects, this
definition of privacy is too narrow. Suppose the police use an
X-ray device and supersensitive microphones to monitor the
movements and conversations of Smith in their home. The
police have not touched Smith or even come close to them.
They have no knowledge they are monitoring them. The
police have let Smith alone, yet people who believe in a right
to privacy would surely argue that they have violated Smith’s
privacy. In other respects, the definition of privacy as “the
right to be let alone” is too broad. If I hit Jones on the head
with a brick, I have not let them alone, but it is not their right
of privacy I have violated—it is their right to be secure in
their own person.
3
Thomson argues that whenever the right to privacy is
violated, another right is violated as well. For example,
suppose a man owns a pornographic picture. He doesn’t
want anyone else to know he owns it, so he keeps it in a wall
safe. He removes it from his safe only when he has taken
steps to prevent others from looking into his home. Suppose
we use an X-ray machine to look into his home safe and view
the picture. We have violated his privacy, but we have also
violated one of his property rights—the right to decide who
(if anybody) sees the picture.
Here is another example. Suppose a Saudi Arabian woman
wishes to keep her face covered for religious reasons. When
she goes out in public, she wears a niqab (face veil). If I
should walk up and pull away her niqab to see her face, I
have violated her privacy. But I have also violated her right to
observe religious and cultural customs, as well as one of her
rights over her person—to decide who should touch her.
According to Thomson, there is a cluster of rights associated
with privacy, just as there is a cluster of rights associated
with property and a cluster of rights associated with our
physical selves. In Thomson’s view, every violation of a
privacy right is also a violation of a right in some other
cluster. Since this is the case, there is no need to define
privacy precisely or to decide exactly where to draw the line
between violations of privacy and acceptable conduct.
4
Autonomous Moral Agents Need Some
Privacy
Thomson is not alone in disputing that privacy is a natural
right. Many philosophers think privacy principles should be
based on the more fundamental principle that each person is
worthy of respect [10]. We give each other privacy because
we recognize privacy is needed if people are to be
autonomous moral agents able to develop healthy personal
relationships and act as free citizens in a democratic society.
Jeffrey Reiman supports this view:
The right to privacy protects the individual’s interest in becoming,
being, and remaining a person. It is thus a right which all human
individuals possess—even those in solitary confinement. It does
not assert a right never to be seen even on a crowded street. It is
sufficient that I can control whether and by whom my body is
experienced in some significant places and that I have the real
possibility of repairing to those places. It is a right which protects
my capacity to enter into intimate relations, not because it protects
my reserve of generally withheld information, but because it
enables me to make the commitment that underlies caring as my
commitment uniquely conveyed by my thoughts and witnessed by
my actions. [9, p. 314]
Note Reiman’s fairly restricted view of privacy. He carefully
points out areas where privacy is necessary. He does not
argue that privacy is a natural right, nor does he suggest that
a person has complete control over what is held private.
Conclusion: Privacy Is a Prudential Right
In conclusion, philosophers disagree whether there is a
natural right to privacy, but most commentators can agree
that privacy is a prudential right. That means rational agents
would agree to recognize some privacy rights because
granting these rights is to the benefit of society [21].
5.2.4 Privacy and Trust
While many people complain about threats to privacy, it is
clear upon reflection that in some important ways people in
many cultures have more privacy than their ancestors did
[22]. Only a couple of centuries ago, societies were agrarian.
People lived with their extended families in small homes. The
nearest community center was the village, where everyone
knew everyone else and people took a keen interest in each
other’s business. In many places, organized religion played an
important role in everyday life. In this kind of society, there
was a strong pressure to conform [12]. There was greater
emphasis on the community and lesser emphasis on the
individual.
Some modern cultures foster much greater privacy.
Prosperity, the single-family home, the automobile, television,
and computers have contributed to many people's privacy.
The single family home gives physical separation from other
people. The automobile allows solitary travel instead of
public transport. The television brings entertainment inside
the home, taking many people out of the neighborhood
movie theater. With a computer and an Internet connection,
information can be accessed at home rather than by visiting
the public library [11]. These are just a few examples of ways
in which modern conveniences allow people to spend time by
themselves or in the company of a few family members or
friends.
5
In the past, many young people lived at home with their
parents until they were married. Today many young
unmarried adults live autonomously. This lifestyle provides
them with previously unthought-of freedom and privacy [22].
The consequence of all this privacy is that we live among
strangers. Many people know little more about their
neighbors than their names (if that). Yet when we live in a
society with others, we must be able to trust them to some
extent. How do we know that a taxi driver will get us where
we want to go without harming us? How do parents and
caregivers know they can trust the people who have charge of
their children? How does the bank know that, if it loans
someone money, it will be repaid?
In order to trust others, we must rely on their reputations.
This was easier in the past, when people didn’t move around
so much and everyone knew everyone else’s history. Today
society must get information out of people to establish
reputations. One way of getting information from a person is
through an ordeal, such as a lie detector test or a drug test.
The other way to learn more about individuals is to issue
(and request) credentials, such as a driver’s license, key,
employee badge, credit card, college degree, or online rating
[22].
5.2.5 Case Study: The New
Parents
Meena and Alex are the proud parents of a new baby. They
had begun exploring options for child care from the
beginning of the pregnancy because both of them have fulltime and highly satisfying careers in the computer field. They
visited numerous day-care facilities, but the ones they liked
the best had no openings. For this reason, they decided to
hire a personal nanny, even though it was more expensive.
After their baby was born, Meena spent three months at
home on maternity leave. During this time, the parents
interviewed a half dozen nannies and hired one after carefully
checking their references.
Just before the nanny was due to start work, Meena and Alex
had coffee with a few of their friends who are all parents or
caregivers of young children. The friends tell horror stories
about abusive nannies, and they all recommend a software
program called LiveSecurityWatch. Meena and Alex purchase
LiveSecurityWatch and install it on a laptop computer placed
in the family room. With the system in place, they can use
their workplace computers to see and hear how the nanny
interacts with their baby. The nanny has no idea that the
family’s computer is being used as a surveillance system.
Is it wrong for Meena and Alex to secretly monitor the
behavior of their baby’s nanny?
Rule-Utilitarian Evaluation
If all parents monitored their nannies or child-care providers
and took actions when warranted, such as firing nannies who
did not perform well, it is unlikely such monitoring would
remain a secret for long. Under these circumstances, nannies
would be much more careful to be on their best behavior.
This would potentially have the long-term effects of reducing
the instances of child abuse and increasing the peace of mind
of parents. On the other hand, the harms of the monitoring
would be significant in terms of increasing the stress and
reducing the job satisfaction of nannies and child-care
providers. After all, who wants to be monitored constantly?
These negative aspects of the job could lead to an increased
turnover rate of nannies. Less experienced nannies might well
provide lower-quality care to the babies they tend. The harms
of having all parents monitoring their nannies or child-care
providers appear to be greater than the benefits. Hence we
conclude it is wrong for Meena and Alex to secretly monitor
their nanny.
6
Social-Contract-Theory Evaluation
Social contract theory emphasizes the adoption of rules that
rational people would agree to accept because they are to
everyone’s mutual benefit, as long as everyone else follows
the rules as well. As we discussed earlier in this section,
privacy is a prudential right. It is reasonable for society to
give privacy to people in their own homes, and it is also
reasonable for family members within each home to give each
other some privacy as well. The nanny wouldn’t expect her
interactions with the baby in a park or a grocery store to be
private, but it is reasonable for her to expect privacy when
taking care of the baby inside the home. Hence Meena and
Alex's decision to secretly monitor the nanny was wrong
because it violated her right to privacy.
Kantian Evaluation
Let’s consider the morality of acting according to the
following rule: “An employer may secretly monitor the work
of an employee who works with vulnerable people.” To
evaluate the rule using the first formulation of the
Categorical Imperative, we universalize it. What would
happen if every employer secretly monitored the work of
employees who worked with vulnerable people? If that were
the case, then employees who worked with vulnerable
populations would have no expectation of privacy, and it
would be impossible for employers to secretly monitor their
work. Hence the proposed rule is self-defeating, and it would
be wrong to act according to this rule.
We can also evaluate this situation using the second
formulation of the Categorical Imperative. As parents, Meena
and Alex are responsible for the well-being of their baby. In
order to be more confident that their baby is safe in the care
of the nanny, they choose to secretly observe the behavior of
the nanny. The observation is the means to their desired end
of having their baby well cared for. The nanny naturally
assumes that her interactions with the baby inside the
residence are private. By not disclosing to the nanny the fact
that she is being watched remotely, Meena and Alex have
treated the nanny as a means to an end. Hence the action of
Meena and Alex is wrong.
Virtue-Ethics Evaluation
As parents, Meena and Alex are ultimately responsible for
the well-being of their child. Rather than put their baby in a
day-care facility they considered to be second-rate, they
decided to spend more money and hire a personal nanny.
That action is characteristic of good parents who put their
children’s needs before their own. When Meena and Alex
heard about abusive nannies, it is only natural that they
would become worried about their child’s welfare,
particularly because babies are defenseless and unable to
communicate. According to virtue theory, parents should be
partial toward their children. We can view Meena and Alex’s
decision to use the webcam as an action characteristic of
good parents. However, we would also expect that once
Meena and Alex are reassured they hired a fine nanny who is
taking good care of their infant, they would trust the nanny
and discontinue the secret monitoring.
7
From the points of view of rule utilitarianism, social contract
theory, and Kantianism, we have concluded that it is wrong
for Meena and Alex to secretly monitor how well their nanny
takes care of their baby. However, from the perspective of
virtue ethics, the action of Meena and Alex is morally
acceptable because it is consistent with parents of good
character.
o learn more about the Boston Brahmins, consult Wikipedia
www.wikipedia.org).
5.3 Information
Disclosures
5.3.1 Public Records
As we go about our lives, we leave behind an electronic trail
of our activities, thanks to computerized databases. Some
events result in the creation of public records. A public record
contains information about an incident or action reported to
a government agency for the purpose of informing the public
[23]. Examples of public records are birth certificates,
marriage licenses, motor vehicle records, criminal records,
deeds to property, and the salaries of state employees
(including your professor, if you are studying at a public
institution). Making government records public is one way to
hold government agencies accountable for their actions and
help ensure that all citizens are being treated fairly.
When public records were written on paper and kept in
county courthouse basements, they were relatively hard to
retrieve. Computerized databases and the Internet have made
accessing many public records quick and inexpensive, and
there are a lot of good purposes to which we can put all that
information. Before a school hires a teacher, it can check the
candidate’s criminal record to ensure there are no convictions
for child abuse. Before a transit system hires a bus driver, it
can check the applicant’s driving record. Before moving to a
new city, you can check out the crime rate of the
neighborhood you’re interested in.
Other uses of public records may not be as laudable. Thanks
to information technology, it’s easier than ever to learn a lot
about someone’s wealth. For most people, their home is their
principal asset. But we saw above that anyone with Internet
access can visit Zillow.com, type in the address of someone’s
house, and quickly learn Zillow’s estimate of the house’s
worth, based on information about the size of the house (a
public record), the selling price of the house (a public record),
and recent sales of similar houses in the neighborhood (also
public records).
5.3.2 Information Held by
Private Organizations
Private organizations, too, maintain extensive records of our
activities. Databases store information about the purchases
we make with our credit cards, the groceries we buy at a
discount with our loyalty cards, the calls we make with our
cell phones, and much more. The companies collecting this
information use it to bill us. They may also use this
information to serve us better. For example, Amazon uses
information about book purchases to build profiles of its
customers. With a customer profile, Amazon can recommend
other books the customer may be interested in buying. On
the other hand, companies may share information about our
purchases with other companies that then send us junk mail
for products they hope to sell us.
8
Often people voluntarily disclose information to private
organizations. Product registration forms and contest entries
often ask consumers to reveal a great deal of personal
information. I once received a product preference survey
from Procter & Gamble; it said, in part:
Your opinions matter to us. That’s why we’ve selected you to
participate in one of the most important consumer research
surveys we’ll do this year. Whether or not you have completed one
of our surveys in the past, you can help us continue to create the
products that meet your needs. Simply answer the following
questions, provide your name and address, and mail it back to us.
That way, we will be able to contact you if there are any special
offers that might be of interest to you.
The questionnaire asked about my family’s use of nasal
inhalants, coffee, peanut butter, orange juice, laundry
detergent, fabric softener, household cleaner, deodorant,
toothpaste, detergents, skin-care and hair-care products,
cosmetics, mouthwash, diapers, laxatives, and disposable
briefs. It provided a list of 60 leisure activities, ranging from
various sports to travel to gambling, and asked me to choose
the three activities most important to my family. It also asked
my date of birth, the sex and age of everyone living in my
home, my occupation, the credit cards we used, and our
annual family income. If I had returned the questionnaire
(which I didn’t), Procter & Gamble would have been free to
use this information any way it wished.
Many of us voluntarily share information about our activities
by posting messages and uploading photos to social network
sites like Facebook. These sites make it easy to communicate
with many friends and acquaintances at once, but this
information can be put to other purposes as well [24]. Social
Intelligence Corporation provides employers with
background checks on potential employees by searching the
Internet for posts and photos by the job candidates that
reveal negative activities specified by the employer, such as
“racist remarks or activities, sexually explicit photos or
videos, and illegal activity such as drug use” [25].
Recall the perspective that privacy is a “zone of
inaccessability.” Using this definition, we can say that our
personal information is private to the extent that we can
control who has access to it. In some settings we expect to
have much more control over our personal information than
in other venues. For example, we have much more control
over who takes our picture when we’re at home than when
we’re at a football game. Hence our expectations about the
privacy of our personal information depend on the situation.
In the rest of this section, we survey a variety of ways in
which private organizations collect and use personal
information, starting with situations in which most of us
would assume we have less privacy and finishing with
situations in which we would expect to have much more
privacy.
5.3.3 Facebook Tags
In the Facebook social network, a tag is a label identifying a
person in a photo. When you post a photo to Facebook, you
can tag the people in the photo who are on your list of
Facebook friends. In a similar way, any of your Facebook
friends can tag you in photos they post to the site. People tag
photos in Facebook an average of 100 million times per day
[26].
9
In December 2010, Facebook introduced a new time-saving
feature called Tag Suggestions. When a Facebook user added
a new photo, Facebook used facial recognition software to
suggest the name of the friend appearing in the photo. In
June 2011, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
filed a complaint about Facebook Tag Suggestions with the
Federal Trade Commission [27]. EPIC claimed that in order
to develop its facial recognition technology, Facebook
gathered facial data from users’ photos without their consent.
Others raised the concern that the introduction of an
automatic tagging feature would increase the chance that
photos would be improperly tagged, which could cause a
problem if the photos were not complimentary [28].
5.3.4 Enhanced 911
Services
All cell phone providers in the United States are required by
law to be able to track the locations of active cell phone users
to within 100 meters. The safety benefit of this capability is
obvious. Emergency response teams can reach people in
distress who have dialed 911, even if they are unable to speak
or do not know exactly where they are.
The ability to identify the location of active cell phone users
has other benefits. For example, it makes it easier for cell
phone companies to identify where signal strength is weak
and coverage needs to be improved.
The downside of enhanced 911 service is a potential loss of
privacy. Because it is possible to track the location of active
cell phone users, what happens if information is sold or
shared? Suppose you call your employer and tell him you are
too sick to come into work. Your boss is suspicious, since
this is the third Friday this summer you’ve called in sick.
Your employer pays your cell phone provider and discovers
that you made your call from out of town [29].
5.3.5 Rewards or Loyalty
Programs
Rewards or loyalty programs for shoppers have been around
for more than 100 years. One example is S&H Green
Stamps, the most popular rewards program in the United
States from the 1950s through the 1970s. Shoppers would
collect Green Stamps with purchases, paste them into
booklets, and redeem the booklets by shopping in the Sperry
& Hutchinson catalog for household items.
Today many shoppers take advantage of rewards programs
sponsored by grocery stores. Card-carrying members of the
store’s “club” save money on many of their purchases, either
through coupons or instant discounts at the cash register. The
most significant difference between the Green Stamps
program and a contemporary shopper’s club is that today’s
rewards programs are run by computers that record every
purchase. Companies can use information about the buying
habits of particular customers to provide them with
individualized service.
For example, ShopRite grocery stores have computerized
shopping carts. The shopping cart has a card reader and an
LCD screen. Customers identify themselves by swiping their
loyalty card through the card reader. A computer taps into a
database with the customer’s buying history and uses this
information to guide the customer to frequently purchased
products. As the cart passes through the aisles, pop-up ads
display items the computer predicts the customer may be
interested in purchasing [30].
0
Critics of grocery club cards say that the problem is not that
card users pay less for their groceries but that those who
don’t use cards pay more. They give examples of clubmember prices being equivalent to the regular product price
at stores without customer loyalty programs [31].
Some consumers respond to the potential loss of privacy by
giving phony personal information when they apply for these
cards. Others take it a step further by regularly exchanging
their cards with those held by other people [32].
Other consumers have learned how to “game” the system.
One shopper noticed that by alternating her ground coffee
purchases between Starbucks brand and Dunkin’ Donuts
brand, she got better prices than when she just bought
Starbucks [33].
5.3.6 Body Scanners
(This section describes scanners designed to take a person’s
measurements. Advanced imaging technology scanners used
at airport security checkpoints are discussed in Section
6.11.4.)
Looking good is important to many, if not most, of us.
Computer technology is making it possible for us to save time
shopping and find clothes that fit us better (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2
A computer takes a customer’s measurements.
(Richard Drew/AP Images)
In some stores in the United Kingdom, you can enter a booth,
strip to your undergarments, and be scanned by a computer,
which produces a three-dimensional model of your body. The
computer uses this information to recommend which pairs of
jeans ought to fit you the best. You can then sit in front of a
computer screen and preview what various pairs of jeans will
look like on you. When you have narrowed down your
search to a few particular brands and sizes, you can actually
try on the jeans.
1
Body scans are also being used to produce custom-made
clothing. At Brooks Brothers stores in the United States,
customers who have been scanned can purchase suits tailored
to their particular physiques [34].
5.3.7 RFID Tags
Imagine getting up in the morning, going into the bathroom,
and seeing a message on the medicine cabinet’s computer
screen warning you that your bottle of ibuprofen is close to
its expiration date. Later that day you are shopping for a new
pair of pants. As you try them on, a screen in the dressing
room displays other pieces of clothing that would
complement your selection.
These scenarios are possible today thanks to a technology
called RFID, short for radio-frequency identification. An
RFID is a tiny wireless transmitter. Manufacturers are
replacing bar codes with RFIDs because they give more
information about the product and are easier to scan. An
RFID can contain specific information about the particular
item to which it is attached (or embedded), and a scanner can
read an RFID from six feet away. When bar codes are
replaced by RFIDs, checkouts are quicker and companies
track their inventory more accurately (Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3
Employees take inventory more quickly and make fewer errors when items
are marked with RFID tags.
(Marc F. Henning/Alamy Stock Photo)
However, because RFIDs are not turned off when an item is
purchased, the new technology has raised privacy concerns.
Imagine a workplace full of RFID scanners. A scanner in
your cubicle enables a monitoring system to associate you
with the tags in your clothes. Another scanner picks up your
presence at the water cooler. The next thing you know, your
boss has called you in for a heart-to-heart talk about how
many breaks you’re taking. Some privacy advocates say
consumers should have a way to remove or disable RFIDs in
the products they purchase [35, 36].
2
5.3.8 Implanted Chips
In Taiwan, every domesticated dog must contain a microchip
implant identifying its owner and residence [37]. The
microchip, about the size of a grain of rice, is implanted into
the dog’s ear using a syringe. When a dog gets lost, the
authorities can easily retrieve the address and return the pet
to its owner.
Verichip Corporation created an RFID tag approved for use
in humans. The company claimed that 2,000 people
worldwide had a Verichip implant. The most common reason
for getting an implanted RFID chip was to allow doctors to
learn about the medical conditions of unconscious patients
[38]. However, in some trendy European nightclubs, patrons
have used their implanted RFID chips as in-house “debit
cards” for purchasing food and drinks [39]. After some
highly publicized incidents of abducted or missing children,
the media have reported parents ruminating on the idea of
implanting microchip tracking devices in their kids [40, 41].
5.3.9 Mobile Apps
It’s obvious that Google Maps needs to know your location,
but did you know that when you play Angry Birds or use
Brightest Flashlight, information about your location is being
collected and sold to advertisers and data brokers? These
apps are not unusual. Flurry, a company specializing in
analyzing data collected from mobile apps, has access to data
from more than a half million apps running on most iPhones
and Android smartphones, unless people explicitly block
them [42].
5.3.10 Facebook Login
Facebook Login is popular with software developers because
it gives them access to a great deal of information about
consumers. Many people use Facebook Login to log into
Web sites or apps using their Facebook credentials, because
they find it easier than remembering usernames and
passwords for every site they visit. However, they may not
realize that when they use Facebook Login, they give
permission to the app’s developer to access a lot of
information from their Facebook profile, including their
name, location, email address, and friends list [43].
5.3.11 OnStar
OnStar Corporation manufactures a communication system
incorporated into an automobile’s rearview mirror. OnStar
provides emergency, security, navigation, and diagnostics
services to its subscribers. For example, a driver who runs out
of gas can push the Blue OnStar button to initiate a
conversation with an OnStar representative. The driver does
not have to know their exact location, because the system
automatically sends the GPS location of the automobile to
OnStar, which can send help. The driver does not always
need to initiate the communication with OnStar
representatives. For example, whenever the air bags deploy
on an OnStar-equipped vehicle, the system automatically
communicates the location of the vehicle to an OnStar center,
which can initiate a 911 call.
3
The capabilities of the OnStar system were dramatically
revealed in Visalia, California, in October 2009, when a man
with a sawed-off shotgun ordered two occupants of a 2009
Chevrolet Tahoe to get out of their vehicle. He took their
money and drove off in the SUV. After the police got the
victim’s permission to track down the stolen vehicle, OnStar
provided the police with its current location. When police
cars began to tail the Tahoe, its driver sped up. At this point
the OnStar service center issued a command to the SUV that
electronically disabled the gas pedal, causing the Tahoe to
gradually slow to a halt and allowing the police to apprehend
the carjacker. Visalia Police Chief Colleen Mestas
complimented the new technology for preventing a
potentially dangerous high-speed car chase [44].
Because OnStar has the ability to track the location of
OnStar-equipped vehicles and listen to conversations
happening within them, some privacy advocates have
expressed concerns about possible abuses that could occur if
this information were shared with law enforcement agencies.
For example, suppose the police were looking for suspects in
an unsolved crime. Should they have the right to gather
information from OnStar about all OnStar-equipped vehicles
that were in the area at the time of the crime?
In an hour-long Web chat on the General Motors FastLane
site in November 2009, OnStar’s Jane Speelman responded to
these concerns. According to Speelman, OnStar does not
continuously monitor the location of OnStar-equipped
vehicles, OnStar does not provide information about the
speed of vehicles to law enforcement agencies, and OnStar
representatives cannot listen to conversations inside a vehicle
without alerting the vehicle’s occupants [45].
5.3.12 Automobile “Black
Boxes”
You probably know about airplane flight data recorders, also
called “black boxes,” which provide information useful in
postcrash investigations. Did you know that modern
automobiles also come equipped with a “black box”? A
microprocessor attached to the car’s air bag records
information about the speed of the car, the amount of
pressure being put on the brake pedal, and whether the seat
belts are connected. After a collision, investigators can
retrieve the microprocessor from the automobile and view
data collected in the five seconds before the accident [46].
5.3.13 Medical Records
The change from paper-based to electronic medical records
has the potential to lower the costs and improve the quality
of medical care by making it quicker and cheaper for
information about patients to be shared among nurses,
physicians, and other caregivers. The US government has
been promoting the conversion to electronic medical records
as one way to rein in the rapid increase in health care costs.
The Health Information Technology for Economic and
Clinical Health (HITECH) Act required doctors and hospitals
to move from paper records to electronic records.
However, once an individual’s entire medical history is
consolidated in a database accessible by many, it can be more
difficult to control how that information is disseminated,
with potentially significant consequences. An employer may
choose to pass over a job candidate who has had serious
medical problems [47]. A woman who has successfully
completed a treatment program for drug addiction may be
discriminated against if information about her former drug
use is revealed.
In November 2003, Florida state law enforcement officials
seized the medical records of radio commentator Rush
Limbaugh, as part of an investigation to determine whether
Limbaugh had illegally obtained prescription pain
medications from several doctors. The American Civil
Liberties Union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in partial
support of Limbaugh, arguing that law enforcement officials
acted improperly in obtaining a warrant that allowed them to
seize all of Limbaugh’s medical records, not just those
relevant to the criminal investigation [48].
4
5.3.14 Digital Video
Recorders
TiVo, Inc. is a well-known manufacturer of digital video
recorders. TiVo provides a service that lets its subscribers
more easily record programs they are interested in watching
later. For example, with a single command a subscriber can
instruct the TiVo to record every episode of a TV series. TiVo
collects detailed information about the viewing habits of its
users. Because the system monitors the activities of the users
second by second, its data are more valuable than the
information provided by other services. For example, TiVo’s
records show that 66 percent of the ads shown during
primetime on broadcast networks are skipped [49].
5.3.15 Cookies
A cookie is a file placed on your computer’s hard drive by a
Web server. The file contains information about your visits to
a Web site. Cookies can contain login names and passwords,
product preferences, and the contents of virtual shopping
carts. Web sites use cookies to provide you with personalized
services, such as custom Web pages. Instead of asking you to
type in the same information multiple times, a Web site can
retrieve that information from a cookie.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a set of
rules governing the collection of information from citizens of
the European Union. Implemented in May 2018, the GDPR
has had an impact on American citizens, too. Among its
many provisions, the GDPR requires that companies disclose
the information they are seeking to collect and why they are
collecting it, and get permission before gathering the
information. In response to the GDPR, most American
companies with a multinational presence have adopted new
privacy guidelines and have begun displaying banners on
their Web pages disclosing that they are using cookies to
gather personal information and asking users to indicate their
understanding and consent by clicking on a box [50].
5.4 Data Mining
In the previous section we surveyed a few of the many ways
that companies collect information on people’s daily
activities. In this section we look at how this information has
itself become a commodity that companies buy and sell in
order to provide more personalized services to their existing
customers and to target potential customers more accurately.
5.4.1 Data Mining Defined
Before you use a grocery store’s loyalty card, you have to
spend some time filling out an application that asks for a lot
of personal information, such as your name, address, and
phone number. After the store has processed your
application, using your loyalty card is easy. You just swipe
your card or type in your phone number, and the register
recognizes you as a customer and gives you the appropriate
discounts on your food purchases. At the same time,
information about your purchases is entered into a database.
5
A record in a database records a single transaction, such as a
particular item you purchased at the grocery store. A
database record is like a single snapshot of a person. It tells
you something about the person, but in isolation its value is
limited. Data mining is the process of searching through
many records in one or more databases looking for patterns
or relationships. Data mining is a way to generate new
information by combining facts found in multiple
transactions, and it can also be a way to predict future
events. By drawing upon large numbers of records, data
mining allows an organization to build an accurate profile of
an individual from a myriad of snapshots.
Google’s personalized search and collaborative filtering are
two examples of how companies are using data mining to
create more personal relationships with their customers [51].
Google’s Personalized Search
Google keeps track of your search queries and the Web pages
you have clicked. When you type in a new query, it can use
this information to infer what you are interested in and
return pages more likely to be what you are seeking. For
example, the word “bass” has multiple meanings, but if you
have a history of queries and page clicks related to fishing,
but not music, that can help the search engine return the
most appropriate pages.
Google is able to personalize search results whether or not
you have a Google account. If you are signed in to Google,
the search engine examines your Web history to personalize
the search results. This information is held indefinitely, unless
you delete your Web history. If you are not signed in, Google
creates a cookie linked to your computer’s browser, and it
stores records of all queries associated with that cookie, as
well as results that have been clicked, for up to 180 days
[52].
Sidebar: Google Privacy
Checkup
If you would like to limit the amount of
information Google saves about your activities,
Google offers a Privacy Checkup that lets you
review and adjust your privacy settings. You can
use Privacy Checkup to pause Google’s collection of
personal information in the following categories
[53]:
Web and App Activity: Your search queries
and other Google activity
Location History: Locations you have visited
with signed-in devices, how often you have
visited them, how long you have stayed, and
common routes of travel
Device Information: Your contact and
calendar information, as well as information
from apps and other devices
Voice and Audio Activity: Recordings of your
voice and accompanying audio
YouTube Search History: Your YouTube
search queries
YouTube Watch History: A list of the
YouTube videos you have watched
6
Collaborative Filtering
Collaborative filtering algorithms draw upon information
about the preferences of a large number of people to predict
what an individual may enjoy. An organization performing
collaborative filtering may determine people’s preferences
explicitly, through rankings, or implicitly, by tracking their
purchases. The filtering algorithm looks for patterns in the
data. Perhaps many people who purchase peanut butter also
purchase jam. If a new customer buys a jar of peanut butter,
the software may instruct the register to print out a discount
coupon for a particular brand of jam along with the sales
receipt. Collaborative filtering software is also used by online
retailers and movie sites to make recommendations [54].
5.4.2 Opt-In Versus Opt-Out
Policies
We have just examined a few ways in which a company that
collects information about its customers’ activities can use
this information to provide its customers with a more
personalized service. It only makes sense that if several
companies pooled the information they had on the same
person, they could construct a more complete electronic
profile that would facilitate new insights into products or
services that person might wish to purchase. What rules
should govern the sharing of information collected by
organizations selling products or services? Two
fundamentally different policies are called opt-in and opt-out.
The opt-in policy requires the consumer to explicitly give
permission for the organization to share the information with
another organization. Opt-in policies are preferred by privacy
advocates.
The opt-out policy requires the consumer to explicitly forbid
an organization from sharing information with other
organizations. Direct marketing associations prefer the optout policy because opt-in is a barrier for new businesses. New
businesses do not have the resources to go out and collect all
the information they need to target their mailings to the
correct individuals. In an opt-out environment, most people
will not go through the effort required to actually remove
themselves from mailing lists. Hence it is easier for new
businesses to get access to the mailing lists they need to
succeed [55]. Another argument for opt-out is that companies
have the right to control information about the transactions
they have made. Information is a valuable commodity. An
opt-in policy takes this commodity away from companies.
At this time opt-out policies are far more common than optin policies. Information about customers has itself become a
commodity. Organizations sell or exchange information with
other organizations (Figure 5.4). This is a common way for
organizations to gather large databases of information they
can mine.
Figure 5.4
Companies use computers to record information about their customers
and their buying habits. They analyze this information to suggest additional
purchases, provide incentives, and deliver better service. They may also
sell this information to other companies. By combining information from
various sources, a company can build sophisticated profiles of individuals
and target its direct-mail advertising to those people most likely to be
interested in its products.
For example, a company selling time-share condominiums
purchases from a hotel chain the names and addresses of
people who have vacationed in a resort area in the past two
years. From another organization it purchases a database that
gives the approximate annual household income of a family,
based on that family’s nine-digit ZIP code. Combining these
lists allows the time-share agency to target people most likely
to have both the interest and the financial resources to
purchase a share of a vacation condominium. It uses direct
mail to send brochures to these people.
Data mining can be surprisingly powerful. Suppose a
government agency managing tollbooths were to sell
information records of the following form:
⟨transponder number⟩
⟨date⟩
⟨time⟩
⟨location⟩
⟨charge⟩
7
The agency does not reveal the names of the owners of the
cars, so it believes it is protecting their anonymity. However,
many people have an account set up so that their tollbooth
payments are automatically charged to their credit cards. If a
credit card company buys these records from the tollbooth
agency, it can match the date, time, and amount of the
tollbooth payments with the date, time, and charge on its
credit cards to determine the identity of the person driving a
vehicle with a particular transponder number. Once this has
been done, the credit card company can figure out which
customers are driving the most miles and are likely to
purchase new cars more frequently. It can then sell this
information to banks interested in soliciting automobile loan
applications [29].
5.4.3 Examples of Data
Mining
Data mining is put to a wide variety of uses in modern
society. Here are a few examples.
Targeting Pregnant Customers
The power of data mining was demonstrated in Target’s
efforts to identify which of its customers were pregnant.
Retailers know that the habits of shoppers—where they buy
certain goods and the brands they select—are difficult to
change. However, when people graduate from college or
move to a new town or get married, their shopping habits are
more malleable. New parents are particularly open to
changes in their shopping habits. For that reason Target
asked its statisticians to find ways to predict which of
Target’s customers were in their second trimester of
pregnancy. The company’s goal was to use direct-mail offers
to get them into the habit of buying a wide variety of items at
Target stores.
8
Target’s statisticians found customers who had set up babyshower registries at Target, then looked back in time to
discover what products they had bought when they were in
their second trimester. The analysts found about two dozen
products that were good predictors of a second-trimester
pregnancy, including unscented lotion, extra-large bags of
cotton balls, and nutritional supplements. For those
customers who were predicted to be pregnant, the
statisticians showed they could also predict their expected
delivery date within a relatively small window of time.
Target used the algorithms developed by its statisticians to
mine its extensive databases of customer purchases. The
company identified tens of thousands of customers who were
probably pregnant and sent them direct-mail advertising. The
marketing executives were savvy enough to know that the
customers receiving these promotions might be upset if they
discovered Target knew they were pregnant. In order not to
tip them off, Target made sure that the mailings included
offers on wineglasses, lawn mowers, and other unrelated
items mixed in with the offers for diapers, baby clothes, and
cribs [56].
Credit Reports
Credit reports are a great example of how information about
customers has itself become a commodity. A credit bureau is
a company that keeps track of an individual’s assets, debts,
and history of paying bills and repaying loans, using this
information to determine the creditworthiness of that person.
Credit bureaus sell credit reports to banks, credit card
companies, and other potential lenders.
Thanks to the national credit bureau system, you can get a
credit card from a bank or store that you’ve never done
business with. When you want to borrow money to purchase
a home, you don’t have to go to your local bank. You can get
the money from a bank across the country that trusts you to
repay the loan because of your high credit score. Competition
among banks leads to lower interest rates, a definite
advantage for consumers.
Of course, if you have a poor record of paying bills on time
and repaying loans, your credit score will be low. People with
low credit scores have a harder time getting loans and pay
higher interest rates on the loans they do get.
A poor credit report can come back to haunt people in ways
they might not have anticipated. Many employers conduct a
credit check late in the job interview process as a way of
double-checking a candidate before making a job offer. A
credit report received by an employer doesn’t give the
applicant’s credit score, but it does list the applicant’s debts.
Critics of the use of credit reports when making hiring
decisions have stated that these reports can cause employers
to shy away from people of color and those who are
currently out of work. “I think the assumption that is made
is, if somebody is behind on their bills, then it tells something
about their integrity or responsibility, but in many cases that
assumption is flawed,” said Sarah Crawford of the Lawyers’
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law [57].
Targeted Direct Mail and Data Brokers
Years ago direct-mail marketing meant mass mailings of
advertisements. Today the trend is toward targeted direct
mail, in which businesses mail their advertisements only to
the leads most likely to be interested in purchasing their
products. Customized mailing lists are available from data
brokers: companies that combine information gathered
online with offline information, such as magazine
subscriptions, loyalty cards, and government records, to
create comprehensive profiles of consumers [58].
9
Edith Ramirez, then head of the US Federal Trade
Commission, wrote: “You may not know them, but data
brokers know you. They know where you live, what you buy,
your income, your ethnicity, how old your kids are, your
health conditions, and your interests and hobbies” [59].
Have you ever had a store clerk ask you for your ZIP code
after you’ve made a purchase? It turns out that the clerk
doesn’t need your address to identify you. Your name (taken
from your credit or debit card), combined with your ZIP
code, is 90 percent accurate at identifying you and allowing
your purchase to become another piece of information for
data brokers [60].
Two of the most prominent data brokers are Experian (one
of the three largest credit report companies in the United
States) and Acxiom. Experian has a database of more than
200 million consumers. Acxiom is even larger. It has
collected information on 500 million consumers, with an
average of 1,500 pieces of information per consumer [60].
Both of these data brokers can provide specialized lists to
direct marketers. For example, Acxiom has divided US
households into 70 segments based on their demographics
and their spending habits. These segments include one for
affluent baby boomers, another for young singles, and
another one for retirees of modest means.
Besides Experian and Acxiom, there are thousands of other
data brokers, and many of them have created highly focused
lists. For example, it is possible to purchase mailing lists of
people based on their sexual orientation, health status, or
prior purchases [61].
Did you know that two shoppers visiting the same online
retailer may have quite different experiences? Data brokers
sell profiles of consumers to some online merchants, who use
this information to determine which advertisements to
display [59]. Retailers even use customer profiles to
determine who should be offered a discount and who should
be charged full price and offered more expensive options
[62].
When Blue Chip Marketing Worldwide needed to identify
candidates for an obesity drug trial, it looked for evidence
that a person might be over their healthy weight, including a
pattern of shopping for clothes online, frequent fast-food
dining, and subscribing to premium cable TV packages [63].
Privacy experts warn that the success of these efforts
demonstrates that the amount of data being collected has
reached a point where companies can make accurate
inferences about the medical conditions of individuals, even
without accessing their private medical records.
Microtargeting
Since 2004 direct marketing based on data mining has
become part of US presidential campaigns [64]. In a
technique called microtargeting, a campaign combines data
about voter registration, voting frequency, and contributions
with consumer data and information available from a
geographic information system to gain insights into which
candidate the voter is likely to favor. The campaign then uses
direct mailings, email, text messages, or home visits to
encourage likely supporters to vote.
5.4.4 Social Network
Analysis
A relatively new area in data mining is the incorporation of
information collected from social networks. Here are a few
examples of how organizations are using social network
analysis to further their objectives.
0
Companies can track mentions of their brands on social
media in real time. Social media sentiment analysis, or
opinion mining, goes beyond simply counting mentions to
analyze whether the comments are positive or negative.
Companies track sentiment in real time and can be alerted
when sentiment suddenly changes, allowing them to respond
quickly to negative mentions [65].
About two in five employers in the United States include
analysis of social network sites in their background checks of
job candidates, and half of these employers report they have
found information that has caused them not to hire certain
candidates. The most common reasons for rejecting
candidates were the discovery of posts containing sexually
provocative or inappropriate photos, information about
drinking or drug use, criticisms of former employers or
coworkers, evidence of poor communication skills, and
discriminatory remarks about other people. Interestingly,
one-quarter of employers conducting social media
background checks reported they had also discovered positive
information about a job candidate that led to an immediate
job offer [66].
Banks are combining data collected from social networks
with credit card statements and other information to evaluate
the riskiness of loans. For example, someone applying for a
loan to start a new business may be a bad risk if the proposed
business has no connection with their social network,
educational background, travel history, or previous business
dealings [67].
In ultracompetitive cell phone markets, it’s crucial that
companies keep their subscribers from defecting to rival
firms. Bharti Airtel, India’s largest cell phone company, uses
software to analyze phone records and identify “influencers,”
those subscribers most likely to be able to persuade their
friends and family members to follow them when they switch
carriers. It then offers the influencers special promotions to
keep them loyal. How can Bharti Airtel identify influencers
from their phone records? They are the ones whose calls are
quickly returned, who call other people late at night more
frequently, and who get more calls on Friday afternoons
when parties are often organized [67].
Speaking of parties, police in Richmond, Virginia, monitor
Facebook and Twitter messages to determine where parties
are happening. Data-mining software identifies the party
locations mentioned most frequently. By deploying officers
more strategically on big party nights, the department saves
about $15,000 on overtime pay, and the community has seen
a big drop in criminal activity [67].
Sidebar: Controlling Your
Facebook Information
If you’re worried about what others can learn about
you through postings on Facebook, but don’t want
to delete your Facebook account, you can change
your settings to minimize who can see what you’re
doing. The following list shows the ways in which
you can restrict the flow of personal information.
You may decide to have more privacy in some areas
and less privacy in other areas. Use Facebook’s
“Privacy Checkup” feature to view and change your
settings. The names of all these settings are quoted
verbatim from the Facebook Web site [68].
251
Under “Profile Information,” you can restrict who
sees the following information about you:
Phone number
Email
Birthday
Hometown
Relationship
Current city
Education
Who can see your friends list on your profile
Who can see the people, pages and lists you
follow
Under “Posts and Stories,” you can restrict who
sees your posts and stories:
Who can see your future posts
Who can see your stories
Limit past posts to only Friends
Under “Blocking,” you can create a list of people
who will no longer be able to view your posts, tag
you, send you invitations, “start a conversation”
with you, or “add you as a friend.”
5.4.5 Release of
“Anonymized” Datasets
On at least two occasions, corporations have released large
datasets from which they had attempted to strip away
personally identifiable information in order to preserve the
anonymity of the people creating the data. In neither case
were the datasets truly anonymized.
Netflix Prize
Netflix is a popular subscription service for movies and
television shows. An important feature of Netflix is its movie
recommendation service. After a subscriber has rated several
movies, Netflix uses a collaborative filtering algorithm to
predict how well the subscriber will like other movies in its
collection. It then recommends to the subscriber movies the
subscriber is likely to enjoy.
In 2006 Netflix offered a $1 million prize to any group that
could come up with a collaborative filtering algorithm that
was at least 10 percent better than Netflix’s own algorithm at
predicting user ratings for movies. Netflix released more than
100 million movie ratings from nearly half a million
customers, stripped of private information in an attempt to
make the records anonymous. Each movie rating consisted of
four pieces of information—subscriber, movie, date of grade,
and grade—where each subscriber was represented by an
integer.
2
However, a group of researchers at the University of Texas at
Austin demonstrated how it was possible, with just a little
information about movies seen by an individual, to identify
the movie-rating records associated with that person,
revealing potentially sensitive information, such as their
political leanings or sexual orientation [69]. The revelation
that the release of “anonymous” movie ratings information
could compromise the privacy of Netflix subscribers led to a
complaint by the US Federal Trade Commission and a
lawsuit. On March 12, 2010, Netflix announced that it was
canceling a Netflix Prize sequel [70].
AOL Search Dataset
In 2006 an AOL research team led by Dr. Abdur Chowdhury
posted to the Web a file containing three months’ worth of
search queries from about 650,000 AOL users. The purpose
of releasing the information was to support university
research, but the dataset was downloadable by anybody with
a Web browser and a fast enough Internet connection [71].
In an attempt to anonymize the dataset, which consisted of
about 20 million queries, the AOL team used a random
integer identifier, rather than a name or other personal
identifier, to label all the queries submitted by the same user
[71]. However, researchers who studied the dataset
determined almost immediately that examining a set of
queries with the same integer identifier often provided
enough information to identify the user. For example, many
people apparently performed searches on their names,
presumably to see which Web links were returned. Addresses
and social security numbers also appeared in queries [72].
Within days, reporters from the New York Times identified
several of the people whose search results had been posted.
Thelma Arnold from Liburn, Georgia, agreed to be identified
by the newspaper as user #4417749 [73].
Responding to a storm of negative publicity, AOL took down
the dataset three days after posting it, but by then it was too
late: copies had already been downloaded and reposted on
other Web sites [72]. As the public outcry continued, AOL
fired Dr. Chowdhury and his supervisor. Maureen Govern,
the chief technology officer of AOL, resigned [71].
According to Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, AOL made two mistakes. The first mistake was
failing to get the consent of AOL users before making their
queries available to third parties. The second mistake was
posting the dataset to the Web, rather than making it
available only to university researchers who had agreed to
follow reasonable privacy protections [74].
Large Language Models
Modern chatbots like ChatGPT are powered by large
language models, which are trained on data scraped from the
Internet. In 2021 a group of researchers revealed that it is
possible to perform a “training data extraction attack” on
large language models, causing them to reveal individual
training examples that may contain sensitive data. The
researchers chose GPT-2 to demonstrate their point because
the model and the training data had already been made
public. Their attack on GPT-2 revealed hundreds of training
examples containing names, phone numbers, physical
addresses, and email addresses. The researchers concluded
that large language models are more vulnerable to training
data extraction attacks than smaller language models [75].
3
5.5 Examples of
Consumer or
Political Backlash
Advances in information technology have led to a drop in the
cost of acquiring information. Meanwhile, the value of
information continues to rise, as organizations refine their
data-mining techniques. The result of these trends is that
corporations have an incentive to acquire more information,
making it more difficult for individuals to protect their
privacy [21]. Still, people and their representatives can and
do fight back when they feel a corporation has gone too far.
5.5.1 Marketplace:
Households
Lotus Development Corporation teamed up with credit
reporting company Equifax to develop a database on 120
million people and a program in CD format that would allow
the user to produce direct-mailing lists based on various
criteria, such as household income. Lotus hoped to sell the
package, which it called “Marketplace: Households,” to
small businesses. Soon after the product was announced in
the spring of 1990, there was a considerable backlash.
Consumers complained loudly and vigorously, with more
than 30,000 letters, phone calls, and emails. Lotus dropped
plans to sell the CD [76].
How times have changed! A little more than two decades
later, data brokers Acxiom and Experian are selling directmailing lists based on much more detailed information about
consumers (as you read in the discussion of targeted direct
mail in Section 5.4.3).
5.5.2 Facebook Beacon
In November 2007, Facebook announced Beacon, “a core
element of the Facebook Ads system for connecting
businesses with users and targeting advertising to the
audiences they want” [77]. Beacon promised to be an
important way for Facebook to earn advertising revenue.
Fandango, eBay, and 42 other online businesses paid
Facebook to do “word-of-mouth” advertising of their
products and services through Beacon. For example, after a
Facebook user bought movie tickets on Fandango, Fandango
would send this information to Facebook so that Facebook
could broadcast it to that user’s friends.
Beacon was based on an opt-out policy, meaning that it was
in effect unless a user explicitly asked to be excluded. That
decision was good for Facebook because advertising revenue
depends on the size of the audience. However, the decision to
make the system opt-out upset many Facebook users, who
were unaware of Beacon until it revealed information they
thought was private. For example, after Sean Lane purchased
what was supposed to be a surprise Christmas gift, the
following news headline was broadcast to his wife and more
than 700 other people in his Facebook network: “Sean Lane
bought 14K White Gold 1/5 ct Diamond Eternity Flower
Ring from overstock.com” [78].
Beacon soon attracted strong criticism from a variety of
sources. A spokesperson for MoveOn.org said, “Sites like
Facebook are revolutionizing how we communicate with one
another and organize around issues together in a 21st century
democracy. The question is: Will corporate advertisers get to
write the rules of the Internet or will these new social
networks protect our basic rights, like privacy?” [78].
MoveOn.org created an online group calling for Beacon to
require an explicit opt-in from users, and it attracted the
support of more than 50,000 Facebook users. A few weeks
later, Facebook decided to switch to an opt-in policy for
Beacon. “I’m not proud of the way we’ve handled this
situation, and I know we can do better,” said Mark
Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook [79].
4
5.5.3 Malls Track Shoppers’
Cell Phones
On Black Friday, 2011, two malls in the United States—the
Promenade Temecula in California and the Short Pump
Town Center in Virginia—began recording the movement of
shoppers through the stores by tracking the locations of their
cell phones. The malls hoped to be able to answer such
questions as these:
How much time do people spend in store X?
How many people who shop at store Y also shop at
store Z?
Are there unpopular areas of the mall that do not
attract enough shoppers?
Small signs posted throughout the malls informed shoppers
of the study. It let them know that the data were being
collected anonymously; the mall assigned an ID code to each
phone and tracked the movements of the phone without
knowing anything about the person carrying the phone. To
prevent data about their movements from being collected,
shoppers had to turn off their cell phones.
The malls had planned to continue their study through the
Christmas buying season, but an intervention by Senator
Charles Schumer of New York prompted them to stop
collecting data after only three days [80].
Sharon Biggar, CEO of Path Intelligence, the British firm that
made the cell phone tracking equipment, responded to the
senator’s statements by pointing out that online retailers
track far more information about their customers’ shopping
habits without asking them for permission. “We are simply
seeking to create a level playing field for offline retailers,” she
said [80].
5.5.4 iPhone Apps
Uploading Address Books
In February 2012, programmer Arun Thampi in Singapore
discovered that the app for the social networking site Path
was uploading his iPhone’s address book without first getting
his permission. Thampi wrote on his blog, “I’m not
insinuating that Path is doing something nefarious with my
address book but I feel quite violated that my address book is
being held remotely on a third-party service” [81].
David Morin, the CEO of Path, initially replied to Thampi’s
post by saying that the purpose of collecting the information
was to make it easier for people to connect with family and
friends on Path and to let them know when people in their
address book join Path. Morin’s statement also labeled Path’s
actions as an “industry best practice.” However, it didn’t
take long for the Internet community to weigh in and point
out that Apple’s guidelines require apps to ask for permission
before uploading information from address books. Facing a
storm of negative publicity, Morin issued another statement
in which he apologized for what Path had done, promised
that the company would destroy the data it had collected,
and announced that the app would be changed so that it
would no longer upload address books without permission
[82].
5
As the Path controversy erupted, the media pointed out that
other popular iPhone apps, including Twitter, Foursquare,
and Instagram, were also gathering information from address
books without asking for permission. All the aforementioned
companies responded by announcing that they, too, would
release new versions of their apps that explicitly asked users
for permission before uploading contact information from
address books [83]. Apple took the additional step of
introducing an App Tracking Transparency function, which
gives iPhone users the ability to control which apps can
access their data.
5.5.5 Instagram’s Proposed
Change to Terms of Service
In December 2012, the popular photo-sharing service
Instagram announced an upcoming change in its privacy
policy and terms-of-service agreement. The terms-of-service
agreement appeared to change how Instagram and its parent
company, Facebook, could use photographs uploaded by
Instagram users. The proposed agreement included the
following statement:
You agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display
your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated
metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or
sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to
you. [84]
After some legal experts said that the new terms-of-service
agreement would allow Instagram or Facebook to use photos
on the Instagram site in advertisements without
compensating or even getting the permission of the person
who uploaded them, the reaction was swift. The hashtag
#Boycottinstagram began trending on Twitter, and many
Instagram users downloaded alternative photo-sharing apps.
The number of people using Pheed and Flickr increased
significantly, though the total number of users of these
services remained far below the 100-plus million using
Instagram [85].
Responding to the uproar, Instagram co-founder Kevin
Systrom issued a statement saying that the new privacy policy
and terms of service had been misunderstood. He also
announced that the advertising section in the terms-of-service
agreement was being changed back to its original version
[86].
5.5.6 The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London installed heat and
motion sensors at employees’ desks in 2016. The newspaper
had planned to use the information it collected to reduce
power consumption for lighting, heating, and cooling during
periods of low building occupancy. However, employees
feared the devices would be used for surveillance, and when
they complained through their union, the newspaper removed
the sensors [87].
5.5.7 Cambridge Analytica
Billionaire computer scientist Robert Mercer envisioned
creating a sophisticated data analytics firm that would allow
him to play an important role in the political success of
conservative candidates and causes. He was intrigued by
work being done by the elections division of SCL Group, a
British firm, to develop “psychographic profiles” of adults
that would classify their personalities and predict their
political preferences [88]. In 2014 Mercer invested $15
million in a joint venture with SCL Group, forming a shell
corporation called Cambridge Analytica in the United States.
The CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, was also
an employee of SCL Group, and all of the contracts signed by
Cambridge Analytica were actually serviced by SCL Group
[89].
6
In order to win business from US political campaigns,
Cambridge Analytica had to create psychographic profiles of
millions of American voters. SCL Group contacted
Cambridge University’s Psychometrics Centre, where
researchers had been experimenting with creating
psychological profiles of people based on what content they
had liked on Facebook. After the Psychometrics Centre
refused to work with SCL Group, the firm struck a deal with
Aleksandr Kogan, a lecturer at Cambridge University who
was familiar with psychometrics [89].
Aleksandr Kogan and Joseph Chancellor co-founded Global
Science Research [90]. They created a survey app called
“thisisyourdigitallife” and used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
to attract people to the survey. Global Science Research
offered $1 or $2 to take a personality test, on two conditions.
First, the company was only interested in Americans. Second,
the test-takers had to access “thisisyourdigitallife” using
Facebook Login. The app’s terms and conditions pop-up
revealed that the app would “download some information
about you and your network. . . basic demographics and likes
of categories, places, famous people, etc. from you and your
friends” [91].
About 270,000 people took the survey, giving Global Science
Research access to data from their personal profiles. The
company was also able to access the personal data of as
many as 87 million people—mostly Americans—who were
on the friends lists of the survey takers and who had not
adjusted their privacy settings to prevent such a disclosure
[92, 93]. (This sort of information gathering from Facebook
friends is no longer possible. On April 30, 2015, Facebook
changed its software interface, making it impossible for an
app to mine data from the friends of the app’s users [94].)
Global Science Research shared the profiles with Cambridge
Analytica. About 30 million of these profiles had enough
identifying information, such as addresses, that Cambridge
Analytica could combine the data with other data they had
access to and construct psychographic profiles [89]. The
company classified voters over five personality traits:
openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism. For example, Cambridge Analytica held that
voters classified as neurotic were more likely to be influenced
by “rational and fear-based” arguments, while voters
classified as introverted should be sent messages that
reference “tradition and habits and family and community”
[91].
The 2016 campaign of US presidential candidate Ted Cruz
hired Cambridge Analytica and began microtargeting voters
based on the data acquired from Facebook users [95]. The
value of the data Cambridge Analytica provided to the Cruz
campaign is debatable. Members of the Cruz campaign told
the New York Times that in the Oklahoma primary election
campaign, more than half of the names of supposed Cruz
supporters they had been given by Cambridge Analytica
turned out to favor other Republican candidates [88].
When Ted Cruz’s campaign faltered, Cambridge Analytica
began working for the campaign of Donald Trump, which
paid the firm $5 million in September 2016 alone. The firm
claimed to know how to identify millions of voters most
likely to vote for Trump [96].
When the story about Cambridge Analytica broke in 2018,
Facebook responded by stating that it was not a data breach,
noting that everyone who used Aleksandr Kogan’s app had
granted their consent for him to access their information, and
the privacy settings of users’ friends also allowed their
information to be shared [93]. Instead, Facebook said Kogan
was to blame, claiming that he had scammed them and
perpetrated a fraud by sharing with Cambridge Analytica
information that was supposedly gathered for academic
research purposes. Facebook suspended the accounts of
Kogan and Cambridge Analytica in March 2018 [89].
Curiously, Facebook had hired Joseph Chancellor, who cofounded Global Science Research with Kogan, in November
2015. Chancellor was still working for Facebook in March
2018 [90].
7
Politicians joined the public outcry resulting from the
disclosure that Cambridge Analytica had acquired
information about tens of millions of Americans without
their permission. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook,
was called to Washington, DC, to testify for a total of 10
hours in front of 91 lawmakers on two Congressional
committees [97]. In May 2018 Cambridge Analytica
announced it was ceasing most operations and filing for
bankruptcy [98].
Summary
This chapter has focused on privacy issues brought to the
forefront by the introduction of modern information
technology. The issues of privacy and intellectual property
are similar in the sense that both issues relate to how
information ought to be controlled. Modern information
technology makes it much easier to collect and transmit
information, whether it be a song, a Social Security number,
or a shopping list. Privacy can be seen as a balancing act
among the desires of the individual, the profit motive of
companies, and the common good. The individual seeks to
restrict access to personal information. Companies seek to
gather information and sell it to those who want access to it.
The common good dictates that some information should be
widely known. Society must decide which information ought
to be private, which information can be gathered and sold,
and which information should be public.
Communities require that some information be knowable to
all. A public record is a piece of information collected by a
government agency. Certain events, such as a home purchase,
the birth of a child, and a criminal conviction, result in the
creation of a public record.
Often we voluntarily share information with others in order
to get something else we want. For example, there is a
tension between privacy and trust. We desire privacy, but we
also want others to trust us. In some situations we must
reveal some personal information in order to win the trust of
others. For example, in order to obtain a mortgage loan,
applicants must provide lenders with proof of their income
by turning over pay stubs and income-tax statements.
We participate in many activities in which private
organizations collect information about us. Data mining is a
way for organizations to create a complex profile of a person
from a large collection of individual facts. Companies use
data mining to direct advertising to the most promising
customers. Data mining is possible because organizations
handling transactions have the right to sell information about
these transactions to other organizations. Whether to provide
customers with better service, increase their revenues, or
both, companies frequently push the boundaries of what
consumers are willing to tolerate.
8
Further Reading, Listening,
and Viewing
Elizabeth Alex and Mark Clegg. “Smartphone Pictures
Pose Privacy Risks.” KSHB/NBC Action News,
November 9, 2010. 3:56. www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N2vARzvWxwY.
Robby Bryant and Bryan Horling. “Personalized
Search.” Google, December 4, 2009. 1:32.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKuG2M6R4VM.
Charles Duhigg. “How Companies Learn Your
Secrets.” New York Times Magazine, February 16,
2012.
Jo Ling Kent. “Lawsuit: Zillow ‘Zestimates’ Are
Wrong, Preventing Homes from Selling.” NBC News,
May 26, 2017. 1:39. www.youtube.com/watch?
v=19BfEEtpcgg.
Thorin Klosowski. “Your Phone’s Location Access
Reveals a Lot. Here’s How to Turn It Off.” New York
Times, June 29, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/turning-offphone-location-access/.
Steve Kroft. “The Data Brokers: Selling Your Personal
Information.” 60 Minutes, March 9, 2014. 14:22.
www.cbs.news.com.
Steven Levy. “How Early Twitter Decisions Led to
Anthony Weiner’s Dickish Demise.” Wired Epicenter,
June 13, 2011. www.wired.com/epicenter/.
Evan Ratliff. “Writer Evan Ratliff Tried to Vanish:
Here’s What Happened.” Wired, November 20, 2009.
www.wired.com/2009/11/ff_vanish2/.
Jeffrey Rosen. “The Web Means the End of
Forgetting.” New York Times, July 21, 2010.
www.nytimes.com.
Elizabeth Schulze. “GDPR: Why Everyone Is Freaking
Out Over Four Letters.” CNBC, June 14, 2018. 2:53.
www.cnbc.com/2018/03/30/gdpr-everything-you-needto-know.html.
Christopher Wylie. Interview by Carole Cadwalladr.
“Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower: ‘We Spent $1
Million Harvesting Millions of Facebook Profiles.’”
Guardian, March 26, 2018. 13:03.
www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/26/thecambridge-analytica-files-the-story-so-far.
“Data Mining vs. Data Privacy.” Deutsche Welle.
Accessed June 24, 2018. 4:05. www.dw.com/en/datamining-vs-data-privacy/av-43493760.
Review Questions
1. What is the difference between having privacy and
being alone? Provide examples.
2. How can an excess of privacy cause harm? How can a
lack of privacy cause harm?
3. What does it mean to say privacy is a prudential right?
4. Is privacy a negative right or a positive right?
5. Why is it important that some information be made
available to everyone through public records?
6. Provide an example (not already given in the book) of a
situation where people must disclose personal
information to a private organization in order to obtain
a product or service.
9
7. How do retailers use loyalty cards to improve their
sales?
8. What are the advantages of consolidating a patient’s
medical records into a single database accessible by
many? What are the risks associated with this
consolidation?
9. How could “cookies” created by a Web server affect a
computer user’s privacy?
10. What is the difference between data mining and
collaborative filtering?
11. Explain the difference between an opt-in policy and an
opt-out policy. Which policy is favored by privacy
advocates?
12. What lesson should we draw from the release of large
datasets in which personal identifiers were replaced by
integers?
Discussion
Questions
13. Do you agree with Scott McNealy’s statement that
people have “zero privacy” and should just get over it?
14. If people value privacy so much, why do they put so
much personal information on their Facebook pages
and in their blogs?
15. MIT computer science professor Harold Abelson has
said, “In today’s online world, what your mother told
you is true, only more so: people really can judge you
by your friends” [99]. Have you ever been upset or
embarrassed by what your friends posted on Facebook?
Are you concerned that people are going to judge you
based on what your friends are posting?
16. Should mobile apps be allowed to collect information
about your location and transmit this information to
data brokers?
17. Warren and Brandeis argued that it is a violation of a
person’s privacy to take their photograph without their
consent.
a. Do you agree with their position? Why or why
not?
b. If someone takes your photo, should you just
assume it’s going to be posted on the Web?
18. What is the difference between privacy and anonymity?
19. Do you agree with the author that it is more difficult to
know whom to trust in modern society than it was in a
small village of a few centuries ago? Why or why not?
20. Critics of grocery club cards give examples of card-
member prices being equal to the regular product price
at stores without customer loyalty programs. In other
words, customers who want to get food at the regular
price must use the card. Customers pay extra if they
don’t want to use the card. Is it fair for a store to
charge us more if we don’t want to use its loyalty card?
Explain your reasoning.
21. Some consumers give phony personal information
when they apply for rewards or loyalty cards at stores.
Others take it a step further by regularly exchanging
their cards with those held by other people. Are these
people doing anything wrong? Why or why not?
0
22. If you voluntarily have your body scanned at a
department store, who should own that information,
you or the store? Should the store have the right to sell
your body measurements to other businesses? Explain
your reasoning.
23. TiVo keeps detailed information about the television-
viewing habits of customers who subscribe to its
service.
a. Should your television-viewing habits be private
information?
b. Do you care if anyone else knows what television
shows or movies you have watched in the past
year?
c. Do voters have the right to know the viewing
habits of people running for elected office?
24. Enhanced 911 service allows cell phone companies to
track the locations of active cell phone users within 100
meters.
a. Who should have access to location information
collected by cell phone companies?
b. How long should this information be kept?
c. If this information could be used to help you
establish an alibi, would you want the cell phone
company to be able to release it to the police?
d. How would you feel about the cell phone company
releasing compromising information about your
whereabouts to the police?
e. Should the police be able to get from the cell
phone company the names of all subscribers using
their phones close to a crime scene around the time
of the crime?
25. Should parents implant microchips in their children to
make them easier to identify in case they are lost or
kidnapped? Why or why not?
26. Before offering a job candidate a position, some
potential employers do a criminal background check of
the candidate. What are the pros and cons of this
policy?
27. You are setting up an account at a local store that rents
outdoor equipment (tents, backpacks, ski gear, etc.).
The clerk asks you to fill out the application form
completely. One of the fields asks for your Social
Security number. You leave that field blank. The clerk
refuses to accept your application without the field
filled in. You ask to speak to the manager, and the
clerk says the manager is not available. Would it be
wrong in this situation to fill in a fake Social Security
number?
28. A company discovers that some of its proprietary
information has been revealed in Internet chat rooms.
The disclosure of this information results in a
substantial drop in the price of the company’s shares.
The company provides Internet service providers with
the screen names of the people who posted the
confidential information. It asks the ISPs to disclose the
actual identities of these people. Should the ISPs
comply with this request? Explain your reasoning.
(This scenario is adapted from an actual event [100].)
29. Google Glass (no longer sold) provided an information
display in eyeglass frames, making it easier for people
to view information while on the go. Instead of having
to look at the screen of a tablet or smartphone, Google
Glass users could see text and images displayed in their
field of vision. Google Glass also contained a camera
and a microphone, enabling users to take photos and
shoot videos from a first-person perspective. Do you
believe Google Glass represented a significant new
threat to privacy? Under what circumstances, if any, is
it inappropriate for someone to wear a product like
Google Glass?
1
30. Homer Gaines used Google Glass while making a
marriage proposal to his girlfriend, Tami Stillwell. “I
would not have been able to pull off that level of
spontaneity with any other device and instantly share it
with the world. Glass gave me the ability to share with
everyone that special moment from my point of view—
the surprise on her face, the way she jumped around,
the ring on her finger and the tears of joy in her eyes”
[101]. What are your reactions to this episode?
31. What special responsibilities do computer professionals
have with respect to understanding and protecting the
privacy rights of their fellow citizens?
In-Class Exercises
32. Give an example of a piece of information that a
person should not have to reveal to anyone else. Give
an example of a piece of information that society
should be able to demand that a person reveal.
33. Divide the class into groups, with about four persons in
every group. Half the groups should come up with
evidence supporting the proposition “We live in a
global village.” The remaining groups should come up
with evidence supporting the proposition “We live in a
world of strangers.” After a suitable period of time, the
groups should share their findings.
34. When you purchase a product or service using a credit
card, the merchant has information linking you to the
transaction. Divide the class into two groups (pro and
con) to debate the proposition that merchants should
be required to follow an opt-in policy. Such a policy
would require the consumer to explicitly give
permission before a merchant could share information
about that consumer with another organization.
35. Joe Herzenberg was a historian and politician as well as
the first openly gay elected official in North Carolina.
After he died in 2007, his papers, including
correspondence, photographs, diaries, and other
materials, were donated to the Southern Historical
Collection (SHC). Herzenberg kept a record of his
personal and professional accomplishments and
struggles in a series of diaries spanning more than 50
years. In the diaries, “Herzenberg documents his sexual
encounters and alludes to his friends’ sexual
relationships and illegal activities” [102].
According to Laura Clark Brown, “Most SHC
collections are unrestricted for both research and
duplication in the SHC’s search room. In that relatively
controlled environment, [the SHC transfers] the
responsibilities for the use of sensitive materials to the
researcher” [102]. SHC librarians must decide whether
they should digitize the contents of Joe Herzenberg’s
diaries and make them available on the Web. Debate
the following proposition: The SHC librarians should
not digitize the contents of Joe Herzenberg’s diaries
until everyone mentioned in the diaries has either given
permission or died.
2
36. Research the case Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario
Costeja González. This case pits a particular kind of
privacy—the right for certain information not to show
up in a search result—against the right to free
expression.
Divide the class into groups of four or five students.
Each group should debate the following proposition:
An individual should have the right to force a search
engine to delete links to pages containing information
that is correct but no longer relevant. After a reasonable
length of time, groups should take turns sharing their
conclusions with the rest of the class.
References
[1] Polly Sprenger. “Sun on Privacy: ‘Get Over It.’” Wired,
January 26, 1999. www.wired.com.
[2] Gary Horcher. “Woman Says Her Amazon Device
Recorded Private Conversation, Sent It Out to Random
Contact.” KIRO 7 News, May 25, 2018.
www.kiro7.com/news/local/woman-says-her-amazondevice-recorded-private- conversation-sent-it-out-torandom-contact/755507974.
[3] Edmund F. Byrne. “Privacy.” In Encyclopedia of
Applied Ethics, edited by Ruth F. Chadwick, volume 3,
pp. 649–659, Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 1998.
[4] Edward J. Bloustein. “Privacy as an Aspect of Human
Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prossera.” In
Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology,
edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman, pp. 156–202,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
1984.
[5] Ferdinand Schoeman. “Privacy: Philosophical
Dimensions of the Literature.” In Philosophical
Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by
Ferdinand David Schoeman, pp. 1–33, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[6] Edmund Ronald Leach. A Runaway World? British
Broadcasting Corporation, London, England, 1967.
[7] Marie Hartwell-Walker. “Why Dysfunctional Families
Stay That Way.” Amherst Bulletin, January 28, 1994.
[8] Morton H. Levine. “Privacy in the Tradition of the
Western World.” In Privacy: A Vanishing Value?,
edited by William C. Bier, SJ, pp. 3–21, Fordham
University Press, New York, NY, 1980.
[9] Jeffrey H. Reiman. “Privacy, Intimacy, and
Personhood.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6(1):26–44,
1976. Reprinted in Philosophical Dimensions of
Privacy: An Anthology, edited by Ferdinand David
Schoeman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, 1984.
3
[10] Stanley I. Benn. “Privacy, Freedom, and Respect for
Persons.” In Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An
Anthology, edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman, pp.
223–244, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, 1984.
[11] Charles J. Sykes. The End of Privacy. St. Martin’s Press,
New York, NY, 1999.
[12] Gini Graham Scott. Mind Your Own Business: The
Battle for Personal Privacy. Insight Books/Plenum
Press, New York, NY, 1995.
[13] Constance T. Fischer. “Privacy and Human
Development.” In Privacy: A Vanishing Value?, edited
by William C. Bier, SJ, pp. 37–45, Fordham University
Press, New York, NY, 1980.
[14] Robert C. Neville. “Various Meanings of Privacy: A
Philosophical Analysis.” In Privacy: A Vanishing
Value?, edited by William C. Bier, SJ, pp. 22–33,
Fordham University Press, New York, NY, 1980.
[15] Joseph G. Keegan, SJ. “Privacy and Spiritual Growth.”
In Privacy: A Vanishing Value?, edited by William C.
Bier, SJ, pp. 67–87, Fordham University Press, New
York, NY, 1980.
[16] Charles Fried. “Privacy: A Moral Analysis.” Yale Law
Review, 77:475–493, 1968. Reprinted in Philosophical
Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology, edited by
Ferdinand David Schoeman, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[17] James Rachels. “Why Privacy Is Important.”
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 4(4):323–333, 1975.
Reprinted in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An
Anthology, edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
1984.
[18] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis. “The Right
to Privacy.” Harvard Law Review, 4(5): 193–220,
December 15, 1890.
[19] William L. Prosser. “Privacy: A Legal Analysis.”
California Law Review, 48:338–423, 1960. Reprinted
in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology,
edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 1984.
[20] Judith Jarvis Thomson. “The Right to Privacy.”
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 4(4):295–314, 1975.
Reprinted in Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An
Anthology, edited by Ferdinand David Schoeman,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
1984.
[21] Alexander Rosenberg. “Privacy as a Matter of Taste
and Right.” In The Right to Privacy, edited by Ellen
Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr., and Jeffrey Paul, pp.
68–90. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, 2000.
[22] Steven L. Nock. The Costs of Privacy: Surveillance and
Reputation in America. Aldine de Gruyter, New York,
NY, 1993.
[23] Michael L. Sankey and Peter J. Weber, editors. Public
Records Online: The National Guide to Private &
Government Online Sources of Public Records. 4th ed.
Facts on Demand Press, Tempe, AZ, 2003.
4
[24] Ben Popken. “New Service Adds Your Drunken
Facebook Photos to Employer Background Checks, for
Up to Seven Years.” Consumerist, June 21, 2011.
www.consumerist.com.
[25] Social Intelligence (Web site). Accessed October 15,
2013. www.socialintel.com.
[26] Justin Mitchell. “Making Photo Tagging Easier.” The
Facebook Blog, December 15, 2010.
blog.facebook.com.
[27] “EPIC Complaint in Re: Facebook and the Facial
Identification of Users.” Federal Trade Commission,
June 10, 2011.
[28] Rachel King. “Facebook Photo Tag Suggestions: What’s
So Bad About Them Anyway?” Between the Lines
(blog), June 9, 2011. www.zdnet.com.
[29] Jay Warrior, Eric McHenry, and Kenneth McGee.
“They Know Where You Are.” IEEE Spectrum, 20–25,
July 2003.
[30] Elizabeth Montalbano. “Microsoft Helps Put Ads on
Computerized Shopping Carts.” IDG News, January
16, 2008. www.pcworld.com.
[31] John Vanderlippe. “Supermarket Cards: An Overview
of the Pricing Issues.” Consumers Against Supermarket
Privacy Invasion and Numbering, 2003.
www.nocards.org/overview.
[32] Elizabeth Weise. “Identity Swapping Makes Privacy
Relative.” USA Today, June 6, 2000.
[33] Stephanie Clifford. “Shopper Alert: Price May Drop for
You Alone.” New York Times, August 10, 2012.
[34] Amy Tsao. “So, We’ll Take It In. . . .” Retail Traffic,
May 1, 2003.
[35] Charles J. Murray. “Privacy Concerns Mount over
Retail Use of RFID Technology.” Electronic
Engineering Times (1298), December 1, 2003.
[36] Meg McGinty. “RFID: Is This Game of Tag Fair Play?”
Communications of the ACM, 47(1):15–18, January
2004.
[37] “Owners of Dogs Lacking Implants Face Fines.” China
Post, September 1, 2000.
[38] Amal Graafstra. “How Radio-Frequency Identification
and I Got Personal.” IEEE Spectrum, March 2007.
[39] Duncan Graham-Rowe. “Clubbers Choose Chip
Implants to Jump Queues.” New Scientist, May 21,
2004. www.newscientist.com.
[40] “Parents Look to Microchip Children.”
CNN.com/World, September 3, 2002.
archives.cnn.com.
[41] Lylah M. Alphonse. “In the Parenthood.” Boston.com
Moms, June 9, 2010. www.boston.com.
[42] Andrew Leonard. “Angry Birds, Tracking Device?”
Salon (Web site), January 18, 2013. www.salon.com.
[43] Kurt Wagner. “Here’s How Facebook Allowed
Cambridge Analytica to Get Data for 50 Million
Users.” Recode (Web site), March 17, 2018.
www.recode.net/2018/3/17/17134072/facebookcambridge-analytica-trump-explained-user-data.
5
[44] Tom Krisher. “OnStar Halts Stolen SUV in Visalia
Police Chase.” BakersfieldNow.com, Bakersfield,
California, October 19, 2009.
www.bakersfieldnow.com.
[45] “OnStar Takes on Conspiracy Theorists.” Edmunds
InsideLine, November 13, 2009. www.insideline.com.
[46] Ian Austen. “Your Brake Pads May Have Something to
Say (by E-mail).” NYtimes.com, March 27, 2003.
[47] Editorial. “Your E-Health Records.” New York Times,
January 31, 2009.
[48] American Civil Liberties Union. “Seizure of Rush
Limbaugh’s Medical Records Violates Florida’s
Constitutional Right of Privacy, ACLU Tells Court”
(press release). February 17, 2004. www.aclu.org.
[49] “TiVo: Viewers Skip Fewer ‘Relevant Ads.’” Adweek,
July 30, 2008. www.adweek.com.
[50] Jeff Blake. “What’s with All the Privacy Notices and
Website Cookie Notification?” Houston Press, May 25,
2018.
[51] L. A. Lorek. “Data Mining Extracts Online Gold;
Stores Collect Information About Web Customers to
Target Future Sales Pitches.” San Antonio ExpressNews, December 15, 2002.
[52] “Personalized Search: Basics.” Google Web site.
Accessed September 2, 2011. www.google.com/support.
[53] “Decide Which Privacy Settings Are Right for You.”
Google (Web site), Accessed June 10, 2018.
myaccount.google.com/privacy.
[54] “United We Find.” Economist, March 10, 2005.
[55] Carolyn Hirschman. “Congress Sticks Its Nose into
Online Privacy.” Telephony, 241(7), August 13, 2001.
[56] Charles Duhigg. “How Companies Learn Your
Secrets.” New York Times Magazine, February 16,
2012.
[57] Katie Leslie and Marcus K. Gamer. “Poor Credit
Prevents Some from Scoring a Job.” Chicago Tribune,
November 12, 2010. articles.chicagotribune.com.
[58] Craig Timberg. “Brokers Use ‘Billions’ of Data Points
to Profile Americans.” Washington Post, May 27,
2014. www.washingtonpost.com.
[59] Gary Anthes. “Data Brokers Are Watching You.”
Communications of the ACM, January 58(1): 28–30,
2015.
[60] Natasha Singer. “Mapping, and Sharing, the Consumer
Genome.” New York Times, June 16, 2012.
www.nytimes.com.
[61] Steve Kroft. “The Data Brokers: Selling Your Personal
Information.” 60 Minutes, March 9, 2014. 14:22.
www.cbsnews.com.
[62] “How Deep Are Your Pockets?” Economist, June 30,
2012.
[63] Joseph Walker. “Data Mining to Recruit Sick People.”
Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2013.
www.wsj.com.
[64] Jeanne Cummings. “Rove’s Patented Strategies Will
Endure.” Politico, August 13, 2007. www.politico.com.
6
[65] Christina Newberry. “Social Media Sentiment Analysis:
Tools and Tips for 2023.” Hootsuite, September 29,
2022. https://blog.hootsuite.com/social-mediasentiment-analysis-tools/.
[66] “Number of Employers Passing on Applicants Due to
Social Media Posts Continues to Rise, According to
New CareerBuilder Survey” (press release).
CareerBuilder, June 26, 2014. www.careerbuilder.com.
[67] “Untangling the Social Web.” Economist Technology
Quarterly, 16–17, September 4, 2010.
[68] “Tools to Help You Control Your Privacy and Security
on Facebook.” Facebook (Web site). Accessed June 10,
2018. www.facebook.com/privacy/.
[69] Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov. “Robust Deanonymization of Large Sparse Datasets.” 2008 IEEE
Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 18–21, 2008.
[70] Neil Hunt. “Netflix Prize Update.” The Official Netflix
Blog, March 12, 2010. blog.netflix.com.
[71] Tom Zeller Jr. “AOL Executive Quits After Posting of
Search Data—Technology—International Herald
Tribune.” New York Times, August 22, 2006.
www.nytimes.com.
[72] Michael Arrington. “AOL Proudly Releases Massive
Amounts of Private Data.” TechCrunch, August 6,
2006. techcrunch.com.
[73] Michael Barbaro and Tom Zeller Jr. “A Face Is
Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749.” New York
Times, August 9, 2006.
[74] Dawn Kawamoto. “AOL Apologizes for Release of
User Search Data.” CNET (Web site), August 9, 2006.
www.cnet.com.
[75] Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Eric Wallace,
Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Katherine Lee,
Adam Roberts, Tom Brown, Dawn Song, Úlfar
Erlingsson, Alina Oprea, and Colin Raffel. “Extracting
Training Data from Large Language Models.”
arXiv:2012.07805, June 15, 2021.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07805.
[76] Ann Cavoukian and Don Tapscott. Who Knows:
Safeguarding Your Privacy in a Networked World.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1996.
[77] Facebook. “Leading Websites Offer Facebook Beacon
for Social Distribution” (press release). November 6,
2007. www.facebook.com.
[78] Ellen Nakashima. “Feeling Betrayed, Facebook Users
Force Site to Honor Their Privacy.” Washington Post,
November 30, 2007.
[79] Farhad Manjoo. “Facebook Finally Lets Users Turn Off
Privacy-Invading Ads.” Salon (Web site), December 6,
2007. www.salon.com.
[80] “Malls Stop Tracking Shoppers’ Cell Phones.”
CNNMoney, November 28, 2011. money.cnn.com.
[81] Arun Thampi. “Path Uploads Your Entire iPhone
Address Book to Its Servers.” mclov.in (blog), February
8, 2012. mclov.in.
[82] Nick Bilton. “Disruptions: So Many Apologies, So
Much Data Mining.” New York Times, February 12,
2012.
7
[83] Nicole Perlroth and Nick Bilton. “Mobile Apps Take
Data Without Permission.” New York Times, February
15, 2012.
[84] Jenna Wortham and Nick Bilton. “What Instagram’s
New Terms of Service Mean for You.” New York
Times, December 17, 2012.
[85] Nicole Perlroth and Jenna Wortham. “Instagram’s Loss
Is a Gain for Its Rivals.” New York Times, December
20, 2012.
[86] Kevin Systrom. “Updated Terms of Service Based on
Your Feedback.” Instagram, December 2012.
blog.instagram.com.
[87] Ben Quinn and Jasper Jackson. “Daily Telegraph to
Withdraw Devices Monitoring Time at Desk After
Criticism.” The Guardian, January 11, 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/11/dailytelegraph-to- withdraw-devices-monitoring-time-atdesk-after-criticism.
[88] Nicholas Confessore and Danny Hakim. “Data Firm
Says ‘Secret Sauce’ Aided Trump; Many Scoff.” New
York Times, March 6, 2017.
www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/cambridgeanalytica.html.
[89] Matthew Rosenberg, Nicholas Confessore, and Carole
Cadwalladr. “How Trump Consultants Exploited the
Facebook Data of Millions.” New York Times, March
27, 2018.
www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridgeanalytica-trump-campaign.html.
[90] Paul Lewis and Julia Carrie Wong. “Facebook Employs
Psychologist Whose Firm Sold Data to Cambridge
Analytica.” Guardian, March 18, 2018.
www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/18/facebookcambridge-analytica-joseph-chancellor-gsr.
[91] Mattathias Schwartz. “Facebook Failed to Protect 30
Million Users from Having Their Data Harvested by
Trump Campaign Affiliate.” The Intercept (Web site),
March 30, 2018.
theintercept.com/2017/03/30/facebook-failed-toprotect-30-million-users- from-having-their-dataharvested-by-trump-campaign-affiliate/.
[92] Issie Laposky. “Facebook Exposed 87 Million Users to
Cambridge Analytica.” Wired, April 4, 2018.
www.wired.com/story/facebook-exposed-87-millionusers-to-cambridge-analytica/.
[93] Paul Grewal. “Suspending Cambridge Analytica and
SCL Group from Facebook.” Facebook (Web site),
March 17, 2018.
newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/03/suspendingcambridge-analytica/.
[94] Josh Constine. “Facebook Is Shutting Down Its API for
Giving Your Friends’ Data to Apps.” TechCrunch (Web
site), April 28, 2015.
techcrunch.com/2015/04/28/facebook-api-shut-down/.
[95] “Ted Cruz Using Firm that Harvested Data on Millions
of Unwitting Facebook Users.” Guardian, December
11, 2015. www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2015/dec/11/senatorted-cruz-president-campaignfacebook-user-data.
[96] Michael Kranish. “Trump’s Plan for a Comeback
Includes Building a ‘Psychographic’ Profile of Every
Voter.” Washington Post, October 27, 2016.
www.washingtonpost.com.
8
[97] Tony Romm. “Mark Zuckerberg Just Survived 10
Hours of Questioning by Congress.” Washington Post,
April 11, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com.
[98] Nicholas Confessore and Matthew Rosenberg.
“Cambridge Analytica to File for Bankruptcy After
Misuse of Facebook Data.” New York Times, May 2,
2018.
www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/us/politics/cambridgeanalytica-shut-down.html.
[99] Steve Lohr. “How Privacy Vanishes Online.” New
York Times, March 16, 2010.
[100] Stewart Deck. “Legal Thumbs-Up for Raytheon
Employee Suit; Privacy Groups Chilled by ISP
Subpoenas.” Computerworld, April 12, 1999.
[101] Jessica Guynn. “Google Glass Sees All – and That
Raises Privacy Concerns.” Los Angeles Times, August
9, 2013.
[102] Laura Clark Brown. “Third-Party-Privacy-CaseStudies.” Southern Historical Collection 2009 Symposia
Wiki, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, February, 2009.
shc2009\protect\discretionary\char\hyphenchar\fontsymposia.p
Chapter 6
Privacy
and the
Government
9
6.1 Introduction
POLICE IN NEW YORK CITY ARRESTED JALANI
HENRY, A BLACK PERSON, on two counts of attempted
murder in 2012. Henry did not have a criminal record, but he
was denied bail because the likes and group photos he had
posted on social media enabled the Manhattan District
Attorney to portray him as a member of a violent gang.
Henry spent 19 months in the violent Rikers Island jail before
his case was finally dismissed for lack of evidence [1].
In 2017 the US government began purchasing cellphone
location data from private company Venntel. The
Department of Homeland Security said its Immigration and
Customs Enforcement division was using some of the data to
identify immigrants entering the United States illegally.
Cellphone location data also helped ICE discover a drugsmuggling tunnel under the US–Mexico border ending in a
closed Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant near San Luis,
Arizona. The American Civil Liberties Union argued the data
purchase was a circumvention of US residents’ Fourth
Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures
[2]. Alan Butler, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, said, “This is a classic situation where
creeping commercial surveillance in the private sector is now
bleeding directly over into government” [3].
Amazon offers video doorbells and other home security
products under its Ring subsidiary. If a police department in
the United States seeks video footage from a homeowner’s
camera, it is supposed to obtain a court warrant or the
permission of the homeowner. A 2019 investigation by
journalists revealed that Ring was coaching police
departments on how to overcome homeowner reluctance and
gain their permission to see their video footage without a
warrant. Police departments requested Ring videos over
20,000 times in 2020. In a 2022 response to US senator Ed
Markey, Ring admitted that it sometimes provided videos to
police departments without a warrant or the owner’s consent,
in “cases involving imminent danger of death or serious
injury to any person” [4].
In this chapter we consider the impact that federal, state, and
local governments in the United States have had on the
information privacy of US residents. The word “privacy”
does not even appear in the Constitution of the United States,
and it has been difficult for the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches of government to find the right compromise
between demands for privacy and competing concerns. We
survey legislation designed to protect the information privacy
of individuals as well as legislation allowing law-enforcement
agencies to collect information about individuals in an effort
to prevent criminal or terrorist activities. We look at famous
examples from US history in which governmental agencies
engaged in illegal activities under the banner of protecting
public safety and/or national security, and we see how the US
Supreme Court gradually shifted its view of information
privacy rights over time.
0
To organize our presentation, we will use the taxonomy of
privacy proposed by Daniel Solove [5].1 Solove groups
privacy-related activities into four categories:
1. Information collection refers to activities that gather
personal information. We discuss issues related to
information collection by the government in Sections
6.2 through 6.6.
2. Information processing refers to activities that store,
manipulate, and use personal information that has been
collected. Sections 6.7 through 6.9 focus on the
information-processing category.
3. Information dissemination refers to activities that
spread personal information. Section 6.10 provides
examples of laws designed to restrict information
dissemination by private organizations, as well as legal
ways in which information held by the government can
be disseminated.
4. Invasion refers to activities that intrude upon a person’s
daily life, interrupt a person’s solitude, or interfere with
someone’s decision making. In Section 6.11 we survey
government actions to limit intrusion by other
organizations, as well as government programs that can
be seen as intrusive.
We consider each of these categories in turn, examining how
federal, state, and local governments in the United States
have addressed the often competing interests of protecting
personal privacy and promoting the common good.
eproduced by permission of the publisher from Understanding Privacy by
aniel J. Solove, p. 103. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Copyrigh
008 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
6.2 US Legislation
Restricting
Information
Collection
This section gives three examples of federal legislation that
limits the amount of information private entities can collect
from individuals.
6.2.1 Employee Polygraph
Protection Act
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
prohibits most private employers from using lie-detector tests
under most situations. An employer may not require or even
request a job applicant or employee to take a lie-detector test,
and an employee who refuses to take a lie-detector test
cannot suffer any retaliation.
The law has several important exceptions. Pharmaceutical
companies and security firms may administer polygraph tests
to job applicants in certain job categories. Employers who
have suffered an economic loss, such as theft, may administer
polygraph tests to employees whom they reasonably suspect
were involved. Most significantly, EPPA does not apply to
federal, state, and local governments.
1
6.2.2 Children’s Online
Privacy Protection Act
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),
which went into effect in 2000, is designed to reduce the
amount of information gathered from children using the
Internet. According to COPPA, online services must obtain
parental consent before collecting any information from
children 12 years old and younger.
In 2022 Epic Games paid a $275 million settlement to the US
government. The Federal Trade Commission had flagged
Epic Games for violating the Children’s Online Privacy
Protection Act by collecting information from children
playing Fortnite without first obtaining their parent’s consent
[6].
6.2.3 Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 is
designed to prevent discrimination in the areas of medical
benefits and employment based on genetic information. It
prohibits health insurance companies and health plan
administrators from requesting genetic information from
individuals or their family members, and it forbids them from
using genetic information when making decisions about
coverage, rates, or preexisting conditions. It also prohibits
most employers from taking genetic information into account
when making hiring, firing, promotion, or any other
decisions related to the terms of employment. The law does
not extend these nondiscrimination protections to life
insurance, disability insurance, or long-term care insurance,
and it does not apply to employers with fewer than 15
employees [7].
6.2 US Legislation
Restricting
Information
Collection
This section gives three examples of federal legislation that
limits the amount of information private entities can collect
from individuals.
6.2.1 Employee Polygraph
Protection Act
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)
prohibits most private employers from using lie-detector tests
under most situations. An employer may not require or even
request a job applicant or employee to take a lie-detector test,
and an employee who refuses to take a lie-detector test
cannot suffer any retaliation.
The law has several important exceptions. Pharmaceutical
companies and security firms may administer polygraph tests
to job applicants in certain job categories. Employers who
have suffered an economic loss, such as theft, may administer
polygraph tests to employees whom they reasonably suspect
were involved. Most significantly, EPPA does not apply to
federal, state, and local governments.
1
6.2.2 Children’s Online
Privacy Protection Act
The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA),
which went into effect in 2000, is designed to reduce the
amount of information gathered from children using the
Internet. According to COPPA, online services must obtain
parental consent before collecting any information from
children 12 years old and younger.
In 2022 Epic Games paid a $275 million settlement to the US
government. The Federal Trade Commission had flagged
Epic Games for violating the Children’s Online Privacy
Protection Act by collecting information from children
playing Fortnite without first obtaining their parent’s consent
[6].
6.2.3 Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 is
designed to prevent discrimination in the areas of medical
benefits and employment based on genetic information. It
prohibits health insurance companies and health plan
administrators from requesting genetic information from
individuals or their family members, and it forbids them from
using genetic information when making decisions about
coverage, rates, or preexisting conditions. It also prohibits
most employers from taking genetic information into account
when making hiring, firing, promotion, or any other
decisions related to the terms of employment. The law does
not extend these nondiscrimination protections to life
insurance, disability insurance, or long-term care insurance,
and it does not apply to employers with fewer than 15
employees [7].
6.3 Information
Collection by the
Government
In the previous section we considered ways in which the
federal government has restricted the amount of information
that private organizations can collect about individuals. In
this section we look at ways in which the federal government
itself has collected vast amounts of sensitive information
about its citizens.
6.3.1 Census Records
In order to ensure each state has fair representation in the
House of Representatives, the United States Constitution
requires the government to perform a census every 10 years.
The first census of 1790 had six questions. It asked for the
name of the head of the household and the number of
persons in each of the following categories: free white males
at least 16 years old; free white males under 16 years old; free
white females; all other free persons (by sex and color); and
enslaved Black people.
2
As time passed, the number of questions asked during the
census increased. The 1820 census determined the number of
people engaged in agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing.
The 1840 census had questions regarding school attendance,
illiteracy, and occupations. In 1850 census takers began
asking questions about taxes, schools, crime, wages, and
property values.
The 1940 census is notable because for the first time
statistical sampling was put to extensive use. A random
sample of the population, about 5 percent of those surveyed,
received a longer form with more questions. The use of
sampling enabled the Census Bureau to produce detailed
demographic profiles without substantially increasing the
amount of data it needed to process.
Today the Census Bureau only uses a single short form when
conducting the decennial census. It gathers more detailed
information on a continuous basis through the American
Community Survey. This program mails a questionnaire with
more than 50 questions to 3 million addresses per year.
Questions include the following:
What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?
Does this person speak a language other than English at
home?
How many times has this person been married?
How did this person usually get to work last week?
Which fuel is used most for heating this house,
apartment, or mobile home?
According to federal law, the Census Bureau is supposed to
keep confidential the information it collects. However, in
times of national emergency, the Census Bureau has revealed
its information to other agencies. During World War I, the
Census Bureau provided the names and addresses of young
men to the military, which was searching for draft resisters.
After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the Census Bureau
provided the Justice Department with information from the
1940 census about the general location of Japanese
Americans. The Army used this information to round up
Japanese Americans and send them to internment camps
(Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1


After Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the Army used information illegally
obtained from the Census Bureau to round up Japanese Americans and
send them to internment camps.

6.3.2 Internal Revenue
Service Records
The United States enacted a national income tax in 1862 to
help pay for expenses related to the Civil War. In 1872 the
income tax was repealed. Congress resurrected the national
income tax in 1894, but a year later the US Supreme Court
ruled it unconstitutional. The Sixteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, ratified by the states in 1913, gives the United
States government the power to collect an income tax. A
national income tax has been in place ever since. The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) now collects about $2 trillion a year in
taxes.
Your income tax form may reveal a tremendous amount of
personal information about your income, your assets, the
organizations to which you give charitable contributions,
your medical expenses, and much more.
6.3.3 FBI National Crime
Information Center 2000
The FBI National Crime Information Center 2000 (NCIC) is
a collection of databases supporting the activities of federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies in the United
States, the United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and
Canada [8]. Its predecessor, the National Crime Information
Center, was established by the FBI in January 1967 under the
direction of J. Edgar Hoover.
3
When it was first activated, the NCIC consisted of 356,784
records in five databases: stolen automobiles, stolen license
plates, stolen or missing guns, other stolen items, and missing
persons. Today the National Crime Information Center
consists of 21 databases, which include such categories as
wanted persons, criminal histories, people incarcerated in
federal prisons, convicted sex offenders, unidentified persons,
people believed to be a threat to the president, foreign
fugitives, violent gang members, and suspected terrorists.
More than 90,000 law enforcement agencies have access to
these data files. The NCIC processes about 14 million
requests for information each day. For example, a police
officer can initiate an NCIC search during a traffic stop to
find out if the vehicle is stolen or there is a warrant out for
the driver, and the system “responds instantly” [9].
The FBI points to the following successes of the NCIC:
Investigating the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr., the NCIC provided the FBI with the
information it needed to link a fingerprint on the
murder weapon to James Earl Ray.
About an hour after the April 19, 1995, bombing of the
Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma state trooper Charles Hanger pulled over a
Mercury Marquis with no license plates. Seeing a gun in
the back seat of the car, Hanger arrested the driver—
Timothy McVeigh—on the charge of transporting a
loaded firearm in a motor vehicle. He took McVeigh to
the county jail, and the arrest was duly entered into the
NCIC database. Two days later, when federal agents
ran McVeigh’s name through the NCIC, they saw
Hanger’s arrest record. FBI agents reached the jail just
before McVeigh was released (Figure 6.2). McVeigh
was subsequently convicted of the bombing.
Figure 6.2
The National Crime Information Center facilitated the arrest of Timothy
McVeigh for the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
(Ralf-Finn Hestoft/Corbis Premium Historical/Getty Images)
4
Critics of the National Crime Information Center point out
ways in which the existence of the NCIC has led to privacy
violations of innocent people:
Erroneous records can lead law enforcement agencies to
arrest innocent persons.
Innocent people have been arrested because their name
is the same as that of someone listed in the arrest
warrants database.
The FBI has used the NCIC to keep records about
people not suspected of any crime, such as opponents of
the Vietnam War.
Corrupt employees of law enforcement organizations
with access to the NCIC have sold information to
private investigators and altered or deleted records.
People with access to the NCIC have illegally used it to
search for criminal records on acquaintances or to
screen potential employees, such as babysitters.
6.3.4 National Data
Exchange
The National Data Exchange (N-DEx) is a database allowing
thousands of US law enforcement agencies at the federal,
state, and local level to share information. The N-DEx system
complements the National Crime Information Center by
containing incident reports, arrest reports, reports from pretrial investigations, and information from correctional
institutions. Access to information from a variety of sources
helps crime investigators “connect the dots” [10]. The
database contains more than 600 million records [11].
5
6.3.5 Closed-Circuit
Television Cameras
The use of closed-circuit television cameras for video
surveillance in the United States began in western New York
in 1968. The small town of Olean installed a surveillance
camera along its main business street in an effort to reduce
crime. Within a year, more than 160 police chiefs from
around the country visited Olean to learn more about their
system [12]. Atlanta, Georgia, now has more video
surveillance cameras than any other US city, with 1 camera
for every 20 residents [13].
The number of surveillance cameras keeps increasing (Figure
6.3). New York City spent $201 million to install 3,000
closed-circuit security cameras in lower Manhattan. These
surveillance cameras are connected to computer systems with
sophisticated image-scanning software that can sound alarms
if someone leaves an unattended package. The cameras are
part of a larger network of sensors that also includes licenseplate readers and radiation detectors [14].
Figure 6.3


After the Boston Marathon bombing, images from surveillance cameras
played an important role in the apprehension of the suspects
The New York Civil Liberties Union has expressed
opposition to the large increase in security cameras, saying
they represent a violation of privacy and will not prevent

terrorist attacks. The associate legal director of the NYCLU,
Christopher Dunn, said, “Our main concern is that it’s unlike
most police activity, which is focused on people who are
suspected of unlawful activity. In fact, 99.9 percent of people
who are captured in the system are just going to be people
walking around, going about their business” [14].
Some critics point to the United Kingdom as proof that
surveillance cameras cannot guarantee public safety. There
are between 4 and 6 million surveillance cameras in Britain,
one for every 14 people. It has been estimated that the
average Briton is caught on camera an average of 300 times
per day [15]. Still, the presence of all these cameras did not
prevent the suicide bombings on the London public transport
system in 2005 [16]. Some experts have reached the
conclusion that closed-circuit television cameras are “largely
ineffective” for crime prevention [17].
6
6.3.6 Police Misuse of
Facial Recognition Systems
Facial recognition software is now commonly used by police
in the United States. In a typical investigation, an officer will
capture a still image from a security camera video or another
source, select which database to run the image against, crop
the still image to be more like the photos in the selected
database, run the search, and review the list of possible
matches. Companies creating the facial recognition software
and the police departments using the software state that a
facial recognition match should be treated only as a lead and
does not provide probable cause to make an arrest. However,
police officers have in fact relied solely upon positive matches
from facial recognition software to make arrests. When they
do so, they are exhibiting a bias against people of color
because the false positive rate for face recognition systems is
significantly higher for darker-skinned individuals than for
lighter-skinned individuals [18]. In several cases, innocent
Black men have been jailed and have faced charges when the
only piece of evidence against them was a match from a facial
recognition system [19].
Between 2019 and 2021, about two dozen state or local
governments in the United States passed laws banning the use
of facial recognition technology by police departments and
other government agencies. However, concerns about rapidly
rising crime rates caused some of these governments to drop
their bans only one or two years later [20].
6.3.7 License-Plate
Scanners
More than 70 percent of police departments in the United
States make use of scanners that read license-plate numbers
of passing cars and record the time and location where each
car was spotted. License-plate scanners, typically mounted on
police cars, parking enforcement vehicles, road signs, toll
gates, or bridges, track the movements of millions of
automobiles every year. Police credit license-plate scanners
with helping them find stolen vehicles and solve criminal
cases [21].
The American Civil Liberties Union has protested the
widespread collection of data about citizens who are not
suspected of committing any crime. In one widely publicized
incident, police in New York City drove unmarked cars
equipped with license-plate scanners to record the licenseplate numbers of cars parked near a mosque in Queens [22].
Several states have passed legislation restricting the use of
license-plate scanners and/or putting limits on how long
police can retain the scans. For example, New Hampshire
prohibits the use of license-plate scanners, with several
exceptions, including toll-booths, bridges, and police
investigations approved on a case-by-case basis. A California
statute requires the California Highway Patrol to purge scans
after 60 days, except for scans being used as evidence in a
criminal investigation, and it prohibits the sale or distribution
of license-plate data to any non–law enforcement
organizations [23].
7
6.3.8 Police Drones
Hundreds of police and sheriff’s departments in the United
States have begun operating unmanned drones (Figure 6.4).
Police drones are nothing like the large Predator drones used
by the US military; Federal Aviation Administration rules
require that drones used by the police weigh no more than 25
pounds, fly no higher than 400 feet, and be flown during
daylight within view of the operator [24]. Possible uses of the
small drones include searching for missing persons, surveying
storm damage to isolated neighborhoods, controlling illegal
immigration, pursuing people who are fugitives, and
performing surveillance at large public gatherings [25].
Figure 6.4
Some police departments have acquired small unmanned drones to serve
as surveillance platforms.
(Jarp5/123RF)
Some uses of police drones are supported by the public, but
others are not. In a poll conducted by Monmouth University,
66 percent of Americans expressed privacy concerns related
to the use of unmanned drones with high-tech cameras by US
law enforcement agencies, and 67 percent opposed the use of
drones to issue speeding tickets, but 80 percent supported the
use of drones in search-and-rescue missions [26].
Numerous cities and states are currently debating what
controls, if any, should be placed on the use of drones by
police. Should police be required to get a search warrant
before deploying a drone, or should they be able to use a
drone to collect the evidence they need to get a search
warrant? Seattle police purchased two drones, but after a
strong public protest, Mayor Mike McGinn ordered the
drones to be sent back to the manufacturer [25]. Florida,
Virginia, and Idaho have passed laws prohibiting the use of
police drones for crowd surveillance at public events [27].
8
6.4 Covert
Government
Surveillance
We now turn to ways in which the US government has
collected information in order to detect and apprehend
suspected criminals or to improve national security. Because
the individuals being observed are suspected of wrongdoing,
they are not alerted or asked for permission before the
surveillance begins.
Does covert surveillance violate any of the rights of a citizen?
The most relevant statement in the US Constitution is the
Fourth Amendment.
Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.
Before the American Revolution, English agents in pursuit of
smugglers made use of writs of assistance, which gave them
authority to enter any house or building and seize any
prohibited goods they could find. This activity drew the ire of
the colonists. It is not surprising, then, that a prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures appears in the Bill
of Rights.
The position of the US Supreme Court with respect to covert
electronic surveillance has changed over time. Let’s see how
the Supreme Court’s position evolved.
6.4.1 Wiretaps and Bugs
Wiretapping refers to the interception of a telephone
conversation. (The term is somewhat anachronistic, because
many telephone conversations are no longer transmitted over
wires.) Wiretapping has been taking place ever since the
1890s, when telephones became commonly used. The state of
New York made wiretapping a felony in 1892, but the police
in New York City ignored the law and continued the practice
of wiretapping. Until 1920, the New York City police
listened to conversations between lawyers and clients, doctors
and patients, and priests and penitents. On several occasions
the police even tapped the trunk lines into hotels and listened
to the telephone conversations of all the hotel guests [28].
Olmstead v. United States
Wiretapping was a popular tool for catching bootleggers
during Prohibition (1919–1933). The most famous case
involved Roy Olmstead, who ran a $2-million-a-year
bootlegging business in Seattle, Washington. Without a
warrant, federal agents tapped Olmstead’s phone and
collected enough evidence to convict him. Although
wiretapping was illegal under Washington law, the state
court allowed evidence obtained through the wiretapping to
be admitted. Olmstead appealed all the way to the US
Supreme Court. His lawyer argued that the police had
violated Olmstead’s right to privacy by listening in on his
telephone conversations. He also argued that the evidence
should be thrown out because it was obtained without a
search warrant [28, 29].
9
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v.
United States that the Fourth Amendment protected tangible
assets alone. The federal agents did not “search” a physical
place; they did not “seize” a physical item. Hence the Fourth
Amendment’s provision against warrantless search and
seizure did not apply. Justice Louis Brandeis (mentioned in
Section 5.2.3) was one of the four judges siding with
Olmstead. In his dissenting opinion, Brandeis argued that the
protections afforded by the Bill of Rights ought to extend to
electronic communications as well. He wrote:
Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at
both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between
them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and
privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man’s
telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other
person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of
espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny
instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with
wiretapping. [30]
Congress Makes Wiretapping Illegal
The public and the press were critical of the Supreme Court
decision. Since the Court had ruled that wiretapping was
constitutional, those interested in prohibiting wiretapping
focused their efforts on the legislative branch. In 1934 the US
Congress passed the Federal Communications Act, which
(among other things) made it illegal to intercept and reveal
wire communications. Three years later the Supreme Court
used the Federal Communications Act to reverse its position
on warrantless wiretaps. In Nardone v. United States, the
Court ruled that evidence obtained by federal agents from
warrantless wiretaps was inadmissible in court. In another
decision, Weiss v. United States, it ruled that the prohibition
on wiretapping applied to intrastate as well as interstate
telephone calls. Subsequently, the attorney general
announced that the FBI would cease wiretapping [28, 29].
FBI Continues Secret Wiretapping
After World War II broke out in Europe, FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover pressed to have the ban on wiretapping
withdrawn. The position of the Department of Justice was
that the Federal Communications Act simply prohibited
intercepting and revealing telephone conversations. In the
Justice Department’s view, it was permissible to intercept
conversations as long as they were not revealed to an agency
outside the federal government. President Roosevelt agreed to
let the FBI resume wiretapping in cases involving national
security, though he asked that the wiretaps be kept to a
minimum and limited as much as possible to aliens [28].
Because it knew evidence obtained through wiretapping was
inadmissible in court, the FBI began maintaining two sets of
files: the official files that contained legally obtained
evidence, and confidential files containing evidence obtained
from wiretaps and other confidential sources. In case of a
trial, only the official file would be released to the court [28].
0
The FBI was supposed to get permission from the
Department of Justice before installing a wiretap, but in
practice it did not always work that way. During his 48-year
reign as director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover routinely
engaged in political surveillance, tapping the telephones of
senators, congressional representatives, and Supreme Court
justices. The information the FBI collected on these figures
had great political value, even if the recordings revealed no
criminal activity. There is evidence Hoover used information
gathered during this surveillance to discredit members of
Congress who were trying to limit the power of the FBI [28].
Charles Katz v. United States
A bug is a hidden microphone used for surveillance. In a
series of decisions, the US Supreme Court gradually came to
an understanding that citizens should also be protected from
all electronic surveillance conducted without warrants,
including bugs. The key decision was rendered in 1967.
Charles Katz used a public telephone to place bets. The FBI
placed a bug on the outside of the telephone booth to record
Katz’s telephone conversations. With this evidence, Katz was
convicted of illegal gambling. The Justice Department argued
that since it placed the microphone on the outside of the
telephone booth, it did not intrude into the space occupied by
Katz [28]. In Charles Katz v. United States, the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of Katz. Justice Potter Stewart wrote
that “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places”
[31]. Katz entered the phone booth with the reasonable
expectation that his conversation would not be heard, and
what a person “seeks to preserve as private, even in an area
accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected”
[31].
6.4.2 Operation Shamrock
During World War II, the US government censored all
messages entering and leaving the country, meaning US
intelligence agencies had access to all telegram traffic. At the
end of the war, the censorship bureaucracy was shut down,
and the Signal Security Agency (predecessor to the National
Security Agency) wanted to find a new way to get access to
telegram traffic. It contacted Western Union Telegraph
Company, ITT Communications, and RCA Communications,
and asked them to allow it to make photographic copies of
all foreign government telegram traffic that entered, left, or
transited the United States. In other words, the Signal
Security Agency asked these companies to break federal law
in the interests of national security. All three companies
agreed to the request. The Signal Security Agency gave this
intelligence-gathering operation the name “Shamrock.”
When the National Security Agency (NSA) was formed in
1952, it inherited Operation Shamrock. The sophistication of
the surveillance operation took a giant leap forward in the
1960s, when the telegram companies converted to computers.
Now the contents of telegrams could be transmitted
electronically to the NSA, and the NSA could use computers
to search for key words and phrases.
In 1961 Robert Kennedy became the new attorney general of
the United States, and he immediately focused his attention
on organized crime. Discovering that information about
mobsters was scattered piecemeal among the FBI, IRS,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and other
agencies, he convened a meeting in which investigators from
all of these agencies could exchange information. The Justice
Department gave the names of hundreds of alleged crime
figures to the NSA, asking that these figures be put on its
“watch list.” Intelligence gathered by the NSA contributed to
several prosecutions.
1
Also during the Kennedy administration, the FBI asked the
NSA to put on its watch list the names of US citizens and
companies doing business with Cuba. The NSA sent
information gathered from intercepted telegrams and
international telephone calls back to the FBI.
During the Vietnam War, the Johnson and Nixon
administrations hypothesized that foreign governments were
controlling or influencing the activities of American groups
opposed to the war. They asked the NSA to put the names of
war protesters on its watch list. Some of the people placed on
the watch list included the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr., the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, Black Panther leader
Eldridge Cleaver, pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, folksinger
Joan Baez, and actress Jane Fonda.
In 1969 President Nixon established the White House Task
Force on Heroin Suppression. The NSA soon became an
active participant in the war on drugs, monitoring the phone
calls of people put on its drug watch list. Intelligence
gathered by the NSA led to convictions for drug-related
crimes.
Facing hostile congressional and press scrutiny, the NSA
called an end to Operation Shamrock in May 1975 [32].
6.4.3 Carnivore
Surveillance System
The FBI developed the Carnivore system in the late 1990s to
monitor Internet traffic, including email messages. The
system itself consisted of a Windows PC and packet-sniffing
software capable of identifying and recording packets
originating from or directed to a particular IP address. Armed
with a search warrant, the FBI would set up its Carnivore
system at the suspect’s Internet service provider [33].
In 2000 the Justice Department demanded that Earthlink, an
Internet service provider, allows the FBI to use Carnivore
without a warrant. Earthlink filed a legal challenge
questioning the FBI’s authority to do this under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, but a US District
Court ruled against Earthlink [34, 35].
Between 1998 and 2000 the FBI used the Carnivore system
about 25 times. In late 2001 the FBI stopped using
Carnivore, replacing it with commercial software capable of
performing the same function [36].
6.4.4 Covert Activities After
9/11
The September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon spawned new, secret intelligence-gathering
operations within the United States. The same question
emerged after each activity became public knowledge: Is it
constitutional?
NSA Wiretapping
Early in 2002 the Central Intelligence Agency captured
several top al-Qaeda members, along with their personal
computers and cell phones. The CIA recovered telephone
numbers from these devices and provided them to the NSA.
The NSA was eager to eavesdrop on these telephone
numbers, hoping to gather information that could be used to
disrupt future terrorist attacks. President Bush signed a
presidential order allowing the NSA to eavesdrop on
international telephone calls and international emails
initiated by people living inside the United States, without
first obtaining a search warrant [37].
2
The list of persons being monitored gradually expanded, as
the NSA followed connections from the original list of
telephone numbers. At any one time, the NSA eavesdropped
on up to 500 people inside the United States, including US
citizens, permanent residents of the United States, and visitors
from other countries. The NSA also monitored another 5,000
to 7,000 people living outside the United States at any one
time [37].
Sources told the New York Times that the surveillance
program had foiled at least two al-Qaeda plots: Ohio truck
driver Iyman Faris’s plan to “bring down the Brooklyn
Bridge with blowtorches” and another scheme to bomb
British pubs and train stations. Civil libertarians and some
members of Congress objected to the program, arguing that
warrantless wiretapping of American citizens violated the
Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution [37].
Talon Database
The US Department of Defense created the Threat and Local
Observation Notices (TALON) database in 2003. The
purpose of the database was to collect reports of suspicious
activities or terrorist threats near military bases. These
reports were submitted by military personnel or civilians and
then assessed by Department of Defense experts as either
“credible” or “not credible.”
In December 2005, NBC News reported that the database
contained reports on antiwar protests occurring far from
military bases [38]. In July 2006, the Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network reported that the TALON database
contained emails from students at Southern Connecticut State
University, the State University of New York at Albany, the
University of California, Berkeley, and William Paterson
University of New Jersey, who were planning protests against
on-campus military recruiting [39].
The Department of Defense removed many of these reports
from TALON after conducting an in-house review that
concluded the database should only contain information
related to terrorist activity. The American Civil Liberties
Union asked Congress to take steps “to ensure that
Americans may once again exercise their First Amendment
rights without fear that they will be tracked in a government
database of suspicious activities” [40]. In April 2007, the new
Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence recommended that
the TALON program be terminated [41]. The TALON
database was shut down on September 17, 2007 [42].
6.5 US Legislation
Authorizing
Wiretapping
As we have seen, the Federal Communications Act of 1934
made wiretapping illegal, and by 1967 the US Supreme Court
had closed the door to wiretapping and bugging performed
without a warrant (court order). After the Katz decision,
police were left without any electronic surveillance tools in
their fight against crime.
Meanwhile, the United States was in the middle of the
Vietnam War. In 1968 the country was rocked by violent
antiwar demonstrations and the assassinations of Martin
Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy. Law enforcement
agencies pressured Congress to allow wiretapping under
some circumstances.
3
6.5.1 Title III
Congress responded by passing Title III of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Title III allows a
police agency that has obtained a court order to tap a phone
for up to 30 days [28].
The government continued to argue that in cases of national
security, agencies should be able to tap phones without a
warrant. In 1972 the Supreme Court rejected this argument
when it ruled that the Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless
wiretapping, even in cases of national security [28].
6.5.2 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)
provides for judicial and congressional oversight of the
government’s covert surveillance of foreign governments and
their agents. The law allows the president to authorize
electronic surveillance of foreign nationals for up to one year
without a court order, as long as there is little chance that the
surveillance will reveal the contents of communications with
any US citizens. If communications with US citizens are to be
monitored, the government must get a court order from the
FISA Court.
FISA was amended by the Protect America Act of 2007. This
act allows the US government to wiretap communications
beginning or ending in a foreign country without oversight by
the FISA Court.
In June 2013, the British newspaper the Guardian disclosed it
had received a top-secret document outlining how the
National Security Agency had obtained direct access to the
servers at Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and other Internet
giants [43]. (The document was provided by Edward
Snowden, a former employee of NSA contractor Booz Allen
Hamilton.) The secret program, called PRISM, enables the
NSA to access stored information such as email messages and
monitor live communications such as Skype and PalTalk
conversations without first obtaining search warrants, when
the NSA has a reasonable suspicion that the person being
investigated is neither a US citizen nor a US resident.
According to the secret document, the NSA gained access to
the servers of Microsoft in 2007; Yahoo in 2008; Google and
Facebook in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in
2011; and Apple in 2012.
All the companies that responded to a request for
information by the Guardian denied any knowledge of the
PRISM program. The Obama administration provided the
following statement: “The Guardian and Washington Post
articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to
Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This
law does not allow the targeting of any US citizen or of any
person located within the United States” [43].
6.5.3 Electronic
Communications Privacy
Act
Congress updated the wiretapping law in 1986 with the
passage of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA). The ECPA allows police to attach two kinds of
surveillance devices to a suspect’s phone line. If the suspect
makes a phone call, a pen register displays the number being
dialed. If the suspect gets a phone call, a trap-and-trace
device displays the caller’s phone number. While a court
order is needed to approve the installation of pen registers
and trap-and-trace devices, prosecutors do not need to
demonstrate probable cause, and the approval is virtually
automatic.
4
The ECPA also allows police to conduct roving wiretaps—
wiretaps that move from phone to phone—if they can
demonstrate the suspect is attempting to avoid surveillance
by using many different phones [28].
6.5.4 Stored
Communications Act
The Stored Communications Act, part of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, has significant privacy
implications related to the collection of email messages.
Under this law, the government does not need a search
warrant to obtain from an Internet service provider email
messages more than 180 days old. In other words, when a
computer user allows an Internet service provider to store
their email messages, the user is giving up the expectation of
privacy of that information [44].
In the past it had been understood that the government
needed a court order to gain access to emails under 180 days
old, but in 2010 the government asked Yahoo to turn over
emails under 180 days old that had already been read by the
recipient [45]. Yahoo challenged this request in federal court,
supported by Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
and the Center for Democracy & Technology, and the
government withdrew its demand for the emails.
Nearly 50 companies and privacy rights organizations,
including AOL, the American Civil Liberties Union, the
American Library Association, AT&T, Consumer Action, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Facebook, Google, IBM,
Intel, and Microsoft, have joined forces to form an
organization called Digital Due Process, which is lobbying
Congress to update the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act. In the past Internet service providers simply transmitted
email messages from senders to recipients. Today most
Internet service providers supply convenient long-term
storage of their customers’ emails, and millions of customers
take advantage of this service to hold their messages
indefinitely. With the advent of cloud computing, companies
such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are storing sensitive
documents and other materials that in the past would have
been held on personal computers. The view of the Digital
Due Process coalition is that the government should not be
able to obtain an email message, document, or photo from an
Internet or cloud service provider without a proper search
warrant [46].
6.5.5 Communications
Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act
The implementation of digital phone networks interfered
with the wiretapping ability of the FBI and other
organizations. In response to these technological changes,
Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA), also known as the
Digital Telephony Act. This law required that networking
equipment used by phone companies be designed or modified
so that law enforcement agencies can trace calls, listen in on
telephone calls, and intercept email messages. CALEA
thereby ensured that court-ordered wiretapping would still be
possible even as new digital technologies were introduced.
5
CALEA left unanswered many important details about the
kind of information the FBI would be able to extract from
digital phone calls. The precise requirements were to be
worked out between the FBI and industry representatives.
The FBI asked for many capabilities, including the ability to
intercept digits typed by the caller after the phone call was
placed. This feature would let it catch credit card numbers
and bank account numbers, for example. In 1999 the FCC
finally issued the guidelines, which included this capability
and five more requested by the FBI [47]. Privacy rights
organizations argued these capabilities went beyond the
authorization of CALEA [48]. Telecommunications
companies claimed that implementing these capabilities
would cost them billions of dollars [49]. Nevertheless, in
August 2005, the FCC determined that Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) and certain other broadband providers
would need to modify their systems as necessary so that law
enforcement agencies could wiretap calls made using their
services [50].
6.6 USA PATRIOT
Act
On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked
four passenger airliners in the United States and turned them
into flying bombs. Two of the planes flew into New York’s
World Trade Center, a third hit the Pentagon, and the fourth
crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Soon after these attacks,
which resulted in about 3,000 deaths and the destruction of
the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the US Congress
passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, henceforth referred
to as the Patriot Act [51]. The Patriot Act has raised many
questions about the extent to which government agencies
should be able to collect information about individuals in the
United States without first obtaining a search warrant.
6.6.1 Provisions of the
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act amended many existing laws. Its provisions
fall into four principal categories:
1. Providing federal law enforcement and intelligence
officials with greater authority to monitor
communications
2. Giving the Secretary of the Treasury greater powers to
regulate banks, preventing them from being used to
launder foreign money
3. Making it more difficult for terrorists to enter the
United States
4. Defining new crimes and penalties for terrorist activity
We focus on those provisions of the Patriot Act that most
directly affect the privacy of persons living inside the United
States.
The Patriot Act expands the kinds of information that law
enforcement officials can gather with pen registers and trapand-trace devices. It allows police to use pen registers on the
Internet to track email addresses and URLs. The law does not
require they demonstrate probable cause. To obtain a
warrant, police simply certify that the information to be
gained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
6
Law enforcement agencies seeking to install a wiretap or a
pen register/trap-and-trace device have always been required
to get a court order from a judge with jurisdiction over the
location where the device was to be installed. The Patriot Act
extends the jurisdiction of court-ordered wiretaps to the
entire country. A judge in New York can authorize the
installation of a device in California, for example. The act
also allows the nationwide application of court-ordered
search warrants for terrorist-related investigations.
The Patriot Act broadened the number of circumstances
under which roving surveillance can take place. Previously,
roving surveillance could only be done for the purpose of law
enforcement, and the agency had to demonstrate to the court
that the person under investigation actually used the device to
be monitored. The Patriot Act allows roving surveillance to
be performed for the purpose of intelligence, and the
government does not have to prove that the person under
investigation actually uses the device to be tapped.
Additionally, it does not require that the law enforcement
agency report back to the authorizing judge regarding the
number of devices monitored and the results of the
monitoring.
Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials wishing to
intercept communications to and from a person who has
illegally gained access to a computer system do not need a
court order if they have the permission of the owner of the
computer system.
The Patriot Act allows courts to authorize law enforcement
officers to search a person’s premises without first serving a
search warrant when there is “reasonable cause to believe
that providing immediate notification of the execution of the
warrant may have an adverse effect.” Officers may seize
property that “constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in
violation of the laws of the United States,” even if that
offense is unrelated to terrorism.
6.6.2 National Security
Letters
The Patriot Act expanded the use of National Security
Letters, making it easier for the FBI to collect Internet,
business, medical, educational, library, and
church/mosque/synagogue records. To obtain a search
warrant authorizing the collection of records about an
individual, the FBI merely needs to issue a National Security
Letter stating that the records are related to an ongoing
investigation. (The Patriot Act does specifically prohibit the
FBI from investigating citizens solely on the basis of activities
protected by the First Amendment.) A typical National
Security Letter contains a gag order that forbids the letter’s
recipient from disclosing receipt of the letter. National
Security Letters are controversial because, unlike warrants,
they do not require the approval of a judge. That means there
is no need for the FBI to show probable cause. Between 2003
and 2006, the FBI issued 192,499 National Security Letters
[52]. The rate at which National Security Letters are issued
has decreased markedly since then. In calendar year 2021 the
FBI issued 12,362 National Security Letters [53].
National Security Letters have prompted several legal
challenges by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
One of these cases involved the Library Connection, a
consortium of 26 libraries in Connecticut. In July 2005, the
FBI sent a National Security Letter to the Library
Connection, demanding records of a patron who had used a
particular computer. This happened while Congress was
debating reauthorization of the Patriot Act, and an important
point in the debate was whether the FBI had actually
attempted to use the Patriot Act to get information from
libraries. The ACLU sought an emergency court order that
would have allowed representatives of the Library
Connection to tell Congress that they had received a National
Security Letter. In September 2005, a district court judge in
Connecticut ruled that the National Security Letter’s gag
order violated the First Amendment to the US Constitution,
but the executive branch continued to enforce it. In April
2006, six weeks after Congress had reauthorized the Patriot
Act, the FBI dropped the gag order and its demand for the
information. The ACLU hailed the government’s decision as
a victory “not just for librarians but for all Americans who
value their privacy” [54].
7
6.6.3 Responses to the
Patriot Act
Critics of the Patriot Act warn that its provisions give too
many powers to the federal government. Despite language in
the Patriot Act to the contrary, civil libertarians are
concerned that law enforcement agencies may use their
powers to reduce the rights of law-abiding Americans,
particularly those rights expressed in the First and Fourth
Amendments to the US Constitution.
First Amendment rights center around the freedom of speech
and the free exercise of religion. We have seen that, in the
past, the FBI and the NSA used illegal wiretaps to investigate
people who had expressed unpopular political views. In
November 2003, the ACLU reported that public
apprehension about the Patriot Act had led to a significant
drop in attendance and donations at mosques [55].
Critics maintain that other provisions of the Patriot Act
undermine the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment:
The Patriot Act allows police to install Internet pen
registers without demonstrating probable cause that the
suspect is engaged in a criminal activity. By revealing
the URLs of Web sites visited by a suspect, a pen
register is a much more powerful surveillance tool on
the Internet than it is on a telephone network.
The Patriot Act allows for court orders authorizing
roving surveillance that do not “particularly describe
the place to be searched.”
It allows law enforcement agencies, under certain
circumstances, to search homes and seize evidence
without first serving a search warrant.
It allows the FBI to obtain—without showing probable
cause—a warrant authorizing the seizure of business,
medical, educational, and library records of suspects.
(Dana Summers/The Orlando Sentinel/TCA)
8
The Council of the American Library Association passed a
resolution on the Patriot Act in January 2003. The resolution
affirms every person’s rights to inquiry and free expression. It
“urges librarians everywhere to defend and support user
privacy and free and open access to knowledge and
information,” and it “urges libraries to adopt and implement
patron privacy and record retention policies” that minimize
the collection of records about the activities of individual
patrons [56]. More than four hundred cities and several
states also passed anti–Patriot Act resolutions [57].
As alluded to earlier, the federal government issues about
12,000 National Security Letters every year [53]. Google is
an obvious organization for law enforcement agencies to
contact, given the significant amount of information it
collects from individuals who use its search engine. In
December 2009, Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, admitted
Google is obliged to release personal data to law enforcement
agencies. He said, “If you have something that you don’t
want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the
first place” [58].
6.6.4 Successes and
Failures
According to Tom Ridge, former secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act has helped the
government in its fight against terrorism by allowing greater
information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence
agencies and by giving law enforcement agencies new
investigative tools—“many of which have been used for years
to catch mafia dons and drug kingpins” [59]. Terrorism
investigations have led to charges being brought against 361
individuals in the United States. Of these, 191 have been
convicted or pled guilty, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid
and John Walker Lindh, who fought with the Taliban in
Afghanistan. More than 500 individuals linked to the
September 11th attacks have been removed from the United
States. Terrorist cells in Buffalo, Seattle, Tampa, and
Portland (the “Portland Seven”)2 have been broken up [59].
Unfortunately, a few innocent bystanders have been affected
by the war against terrorism. A notable example is Brandon
Mayfield.
During the morning rush hour on March 11, 2004, 10 bombs
exploded on four commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, killing
191 people and wounding more than 2,000 others. The
Spanish government retrieved a partial fingerprint from a bag
of detonators, and the FBI linked the fingerprint to Brandon
Mayfield, an attorney in Portland, Oregon [60].
Without revealing their search warrant, FBI agents secretly
entered Mayfield’s home multiple times, making copies of
documents and computer hard drives, collecting 10 DNA
samples, removing six cigarette butts for DNA analysis, and
taking 355 digital photographs. The FBI also put Mayfield
under electronic surveillance [61]. On May 6, 2004, the FBI
arrested Mayfield as a material witness and detained him for
two weeks. After the Spanish government announced that it
had matched the fingerprints to Ouhnane Daoud, an Algerian
national living in Spain, a judge ordered that Mayfield be
released. The FBI publicly apologized for the fingerprint
misidentification [60].
9
Mayfield said his detention was “an abuse of the judicial
process” that “shouldn’t happen to anybody” [60]. He said,
“I personally was subject to lockdown, strip searches, sleep
deprivation, unsanitary living conditions, shackles and
chains, threats, physical pain, and humiliation” [62]. The
only evidence against Mayfield was a partial fingerprint
match that even the Spanish police found dubious. Mayfield
had not left the United States in more than a decade, and he
had no connections with any terrorist organizations. Some
civil rights groups suggest Mayfield was targeted by the FBI
because of his religious beliefs. The affidavit that the FBI used
to get an arrest warrant pointed out that Mayfield “had
converted to Islam, is married to an Egyptian-born woman,
and had once briefly represented a member of the Portland
Seven in a child-custody case” [63]. Mayfield sued the US
government for continuing to investigate him after the
Spanish police had eliminated him as a suspect, and in
November 2006, the government issued a formal apology
and agreed to pay him $2 million [62].
6.6.5 Long-Standing NSA
Access to Telephone
Records
Beginning in 2011, two members of the Intelligence
Committee of the US Senate, Ron Wyden of Oregon and
Mark Udall of Arizona, repeatedly spoke out against
domestic spying. In May 2011, Senator Wyden said, “I want
to deliver a warning this afternoon: when the American
people find out how their government has secretly interpreted
the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry”
[64].
Two years later Americans began to learn what Senator
Wyden was talking about. On June 5, 2013, the British
newspaper the Guardian revealed that, based on a request
from the FBI, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) had ordered Verizon to provide to the National
Security Agency on a daily basis records of all of its
customers’ calls from April 25, 2013, to July 19, 2013 [65].
(Edward Snowden, mentioned in Section 6.5.2, was
responsible for leaking the information to the Guardian.)
These call records, also called telephony metadata, included
the date and time of each telephone call, the location of the
phone making the call, the duration of the conversation, and
“other identifying information.” Verizon was not asked to
provide the contents of the conversations. The order from the
FISC expressly prohibited Verizon from revealing to the
public the FBI’s request for this information. Opined the
Guardian, “These recent events reflect how profoundly the
NSA’s mission has transformed from an agency exclusively
devoted to foreign intelligence gathering, into one that
focuses increasingly on domestic communications” [65].
The Obama administration downplayed the revelation and
held that the data collection was authorized under Section
215 of the Patriot Act. Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest
said that the court orders for telephone records “are
something that have been in place a number of years now”
[66]. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, confirmed that position: “As far as I know, this
is an exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for
the past seven years” [67].
Senator Udall said, “This sort of wide-scale surveillance
should concern all of us and is the kind of government
overreach I’ve said Americans would find shocking” [68].
Former vice president Al Gore called the blanket order
“obscenely outrageous” [68]. Republican congressman Jim
Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of the Patriot Act, added,
“I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent
with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone
records of millions of innocent people is excessive and unAmerican” [68].
0
In May 2015, a federal court in New York ruled that the
NSA’s program to collect customer telephone call records in
bulk was illegal. According to the US Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, it is unreasonable to interpret Section 215
of the Patriot Act as authorizing the bulk collection of
telephone calling records [69].
Section 215 of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015.
Instead of renewing Section 215, Congress passed a reform of
Section 215, called the USA Freedom Act. The USA Freedom
Act put new restrictions on the government’s surveillance
activities. In particular, it shifted the bulk collection of
telephone records to the phone companies and required
government agencies to obtain a court order before accessing
them [70].
he “Portland Seven” included six American Muslim men accused of attempti
travel to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban.
6.7 Regulation of
Public and Private
Databases
In this section we switch our focus to the information
processing category of Solove’s taxonomy of privacy. (Our
coverage of issues related to information processing and the
government continues through Section 6.9.)
Once organizations have collected information, they can
manipulate and use it in a variety of ways, and some of these
uses have privacy implications. We begin by describing the
social conditions that led to the creation of the Code of Fair
Information Practices and the passage of the Privacy Act of
1974. We then move on to legislation that regulates
databases managed by private organizations.
6.7.1 Code of Fair
Information Practices
In 1965 the director of the Bureau of the Budget
commissioned a consulting committee, composed largely of
economists, to look at problems caused by the
decentralization of statistical data across many federal
agencies. The Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the Statistical Reporting Service, and the Economic Research
Service of the Department of Agriculture maintained
independent computer databases, making it impossible for
economists and other social scientists to combine information
about individuals. Carl Kaysen, the chair of the committee,
described it this way:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to make informed and
intelligent policy decisions on such questions in the area of poverty
as welfare payments, family allowances, and the like, simply
because we lack sufficient “dis-aggregated” information—
breakdowns by the many relevant social and economic variables—
that is both wide in coverage and readily usable. The information
the Government does have is scattered among a dozen agencies,
collected on a variety of not necessarily consistent bases, and not
really accessible to any single group of policy-makers or research
analysts. A test of the proposition, for example, that poor
performance in school and poor prospects of social mobility are
directly related to family size would require data combining
information on at least family size and composition, family
income, regional location, city size, school performance, and post-
school occupational history over a period of years in a way that is
simply not now possible, even though the separate items of
information were all fed into some part of the Federal statistical
system at some time. [71]
1
After Kaysen’s committee recommended the creation of a
National Data Center, there was an immediate outcry from
citizens and legislators expressing concerns about possible
abuses of a massive, centralized government database
containing detailed information about millions of Americans.
The US House of Representatives created the Special
Subcommittee on Invasion of Privacy, which held hearings
about these issues [72].
In the early 1970s, Elliot Richardson, the secretary of the US
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, convened a
group to recommend policies for the development of
government databases that would protect the privacy of
American citizens. The secretary’s Advisory Committee of
Automated Personal Data Systems, Records, Computers, and
the Rights of Citizens produced a report for Congress that
included the following “bill of rights” for the Information
Age [73]:
Code of Fair Information
Practices
1. There must be no personal data record-
keeping systems whose very existence is
secret.
2. There must be a way for a person to find out
what information about the person is in a
record and how it is used.
3. There must be a way for a person to prevent
information about the person that was
obtained for one purpose from being used or
made available for other purposes without the
person’s consent.
4. There must be a way for a person to correct
or amend a record of identifiable information
about the person.
5. Any organization creating, maintaining, using,
or disseminating records of identifiable
personal data must assure the reliability of the
data for their intended use and must take
precautions to prevent misuses of the data.
At about the same time that the Richardson Committee was
established in the United States, similar efforts were under
way in Europe. In fact, a year before the Richardson
Committee issued the report containing the Code of Fair
Information Practices, the Committee on Privacy in the
United Kingdom released its own report containing many of
the same principles. Sweden passed privacy laws consistent
with fair information practices in 1973, and later that decade
the Federal Republic of Germany and France followed suit
[74].
6.7.2 Privacy Act of 1974
The Privacy Act of 1974 represents Congress’s codification of
the principles described in the Code of Fair Information
Practices. While the Privacy Act does allow individuals in
some cases to get access to federal files containing
information about them, in other respects it has fallen short
of the desires of privacy advocates. In particular, they say the
Privacy Act has not been effective in reducing the flow of
personal information into governmental databases,
preventing agencies from sharing information with each
other, or preventing unauthorized access to the data. They
claim agencies have been unresponsive to outside attempts to
bring them into alignment with the provisions of the Privacy
Act. The Privacy Act has the following principal limitations
[75]:
2
1. The Privacy Act applies only to government databases.
Far more information is held in private databases,
which are excluded. This is an enormous loophole,
because government agencies can purchase information
from private organizations that have the data they
want.
2. The Privacy Act only covers records indexed by a
personal identifier.
Records about individuals that are not indexed by name
or another identifying number are excluded. For
example, a former IRS agent tried to gain access to a
file containing derogatory information about himself,
but the judge ruled he did not have a right to see the
file, since it was indexed under the name of another IRS
employee.
3. No one in the federal government is in charge of
enforcing the provisions of the Privacy Act.
Federal agencies have taken it upon themselves to
determine which databases they can exempt. The IRS
has exempted its database containing the names of
taxpayers it is investigating. The Department of Justice
has announced that the FBI does not have to ensure the
reliability of the data in its NCIC databases.
4. The Privacy Act allows one agency to share records
with another agency as long as they are for a “routine
use.”
Each agency is able to decide for itself what “routine
use” means. The Department of Justice has encouraged
agencies to define routine use as broadly as possible.
Although the Privacy Act applies only to government
databases, Congress has also passed legislation regulating
how some private institutions manage databases containing
sensitive information about individuals, and these laws put
into effect many of the principles of the Code of Fair
Information Practices. In the remainder of this section, we
survey some of the most influential of these laws.
6.7.3 Fair Credit Reporting
Act
Credit bureaus and other consumer reporting agencies
maintain information on your bill-paying record, whether
you’ve been sued or arrested, and if you’ve filed for
bankruptcy. They sell reports to other organizations that are
trying to determine the credit-worthiness of consumers who
are applying for credit, applying for a job, or trying to rent
an apartment. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, passed in 1970
and revised in 1996, was designed to promote the accuracy
and privacy of information used by credit bureaus and other
consumer reporting agencies to produce consumer reports. It
also ensures that negative information does not haunt a
consumer for a lifetime.
The three major credit bureaus are Equifax, Experian, and
TransUnion. According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
these credit bureaus may keep negative information about a
consumer for a maximum of seven years. There are several
exceptions to this rule. The two most important are that
information about criminal convictions may be kept
indefinitely, and bankruptcy information may be held for 10
years.
3
6.7.4 Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2004
requires the three major credit bureaus to provide consumers
a free copy of their credit report every 12 months. Consumers
can use this opportunity to detect and correct errors in their
credit reports. The bureaus do not issue the reports
automatically; consumers must take the initiative and request
them from AnnualCreditReport.com.
The law also has provisions to reduce identity theft. It
requires the truncation of account numbers on credit card
receipts, and it establishes the National Fraud Alert System.
Victims of identity theft may put a fraud alert on their credit
files, warning credit card issuers that they must take
“reasonable steps” to verify the requester’s identity before
granting credit.
6.7.5 Financial Services
Modernization Act
The Financial Services Modernization Act (also called the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999) contains dozens of
provisions related to how financial institutions do business.
One of the major provisions of the law allows the creation of
“financial supermarkets” offering banking, insurance, and
brokerage services.
The law also contains some privacy-related provisions. It
requires financial institutions to disclose their privacy policies
to their customers. When a customer establishes an account,
and at least once per year thereafter, the institution must let
the customer know the kinds of information it collects and
how it uses that information. These notices must contain an
opt-out clause that explains to customers how they can
request that their confidential information not be revealed to
other companies. The law requires financial institutions to
develop policies that prevent unauthorized access to their
customers’ confidential information [76].
6.8 Data Mining by
the Government
Data mining is the process of searching through one or more
databases looking for patterns or relationships among the
data. In this section we continue our coverage of the
information-processing category of Solove’s taxonomy by
surveying a few well-known data-mining projects run by
government agencies. We also consider harms that can result
when data-mining algorithms create erroneous profiles of
individuals.
6.8.1 Internal Revenue
Service Audits
To identify taxpayers who have paid less in taxes than they
owe, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses computermatching and data-mining strategies. First, it matches
information on the tax form with information provided by
employers and financial institutions. This is a straightforward
way to detect unreported income.
4
Second, the IRS audits a couple of million tax returns every
year. Its goal is to select the most promising returns—those
containing errors resulting in underpayment of taxes. The
IRS uses an algorithm called the discriminant function (DIF)
to score every tax return. The DIF score is an indicator of
how many irregularities there are on a tax form, compared to
carefully constructed profiles of correct tax returns. About 60
percent of tax returns audited by the IRS are selected due to
their high DIF scores.
6.8.2 Syndromic
Surveillance Systems
Another application of data mining by the government is
protecting society from imminent dangers.
A syndromic surveillance system is a computerized system
that analyzes 911 calls, visits to the emergency room, school
absenteeism, purchases of prescription drugs, and Internet
searches to find patterns that might indicate the onset of an
epidemic, an environmental problem leading to illnesses, or
bioterrorism.
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck in the spring of 2020,
people were encouraged to use hand sanitizers to help
prevent the spread of the virus. During this time a syndromic
surveillance system in Arizona spotted a big increase in the
number of methanol poisonings caused by people ingesting
hand sanitizers. The Food and Drug Administration
responded by recalling hand sanitizer products containing
methanol [77].
6.8.3 Telecommunications
Records Database
After September 11, 2001, several major telecommunications
providers began turning over the phone call records of tens of
millions of Americans to the National Security Agency,
without a court order (see Section 6.6.5). The NSA was not
monitoring or recording the actual conversations; instead, it
was analyzing calling patterns in order to detect potential
terrorist networks [78].
After USA Today revealed the existence of the database in
May 2006, more than a dozen class-action lawsuits were filed
against the telecommunications companies. In August 2006,
a federal judge in Detroit ruled the program to be illegal and
unconstitutional, violating several statutes as well as the First
and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution [79]. In July
2007, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
overturned the ruling on the grounds that the plaintiffs did
not have standing to bring the suit forward. In other words,
the plaintiffs had not produced any evidence that they
personally were victims of the program.
6.8.4 Potential Harms of
Profiling
Experts have begun to warn about the personal harms that
can result when organizations pursue their objectives based
on individual profiles they have constructed through data
mining [80]. Sometimes those objectives are commercial. For
example, as we saw in Chapter 5, Target used data mining to
predict which of its customers were pregnant, so that they
could use direct mail offers to get these customers into the
habit of purchasing a wide variety of items at Target stores.
In at least one case, Target sent advertisements for maternity
clothing and nursery furniture to a teenage girl before she
had told her father she was pregnant [81].
5
In other situations the objectives are much more serious. A
government agency charged with protecting national security
is responsible for preventing harm to the nation, and its
employees are strongly motivated to take action before—not
after—an attack. What happens if a learning algorithm
employed by a law enforcement agency mines a massive
amount of data and constructs an erroneous profile of an
individual, characterizing them as a potential terrorist? The
amount of data being searched could be so massive, and the
algorithms manipulating the data so complicated, that it
might be impossible for any human being to explain why the
algorithm has profiled a particular individual as a potential
terrorist. How are innocent people who are identified on
“terrorist watch lists” able to clear their names in this
situation?
For example, there are now more than 1.5 million names on
the US government’s terrorist watch list, officially known as
the Terrorist Screening Database [82]. Tens of thousands of
these names somehow make their way to the government’s
“no-fly” list. Many people with common names (including
the late Senator Edward Kennedy and the author of this
book) have encountered problems boarding commercial
flights because their names appeared on the “no-fly” list [83].
6.9 National
Identification Card
A great deal can be learned about an individual when
information collected at different places and times is
combined. In order to combine information from two
records, the records must share a common key. A name
cannot be used as a common key, because more than one
person can have the same name, but if every individual had a
unique identification number and that identification number
appeared in every database record referring to that
individual, then all of these records could theoretically be
combined into a massive “electronic dossier” documenting
that person’s life. In this section we survey the debate around
the establishment of a national identification card in the
United States.
6.9.1 History and Role of
the Social Security Number
The Social Security Act of 1935 established two social
insurance programs in the United States: a federal system of
old-age benefits to retired persons, and a federal-state system
of unemployment insurance. Before the system could be
implemented, employers and workers needed to become
registered. The Social Security Board contracted with the US
Postal Service to distribute applications for Social Security
cards. The post office collected the forms, typed the Social
Security cards, and returned them to the applicants. In this
way over 35 million Social Security cards were issued in
1936–1937 [84].
The US government initially stated that Social Security
numbers (SSNs) would be used solely by the Social Security
Administration and not as a national identification card. In
fact, from 1946 to 1972, the Social Security Administration
put the following legend on the bottom of the cards it issued:
“FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES—NOT FOR
IDENTIFICATION.” However, use of the SSN has gradually
increased. President Roosevelt ordered, in 1943, that federal
agencies use SSNs as identifiers in new federal databases. In
1961 the Internal Revenue Service began using the SSN as the
taxpayer identification number. Because banks report interest
to the IRS, people must provide their SSN when they open a
bank account. The SSN is typically requested on applications
for credit cards. Motor vehicle departments and some other
state agencies received permission to use SSNs as
identification numbers in 1976. The IRS now requires
parents to provide the SSNs of their children over one year
old on income-tax forms in order to claim them as
dependents. For this reason, children now get SSNs soon
after they are born. Many private organizations ask people to
provide SSNs for identification. The SSN has become a de
facto national identification number in the United States.
6
Unfortunately, the SSN has serious defects that make it a
poor identification number. The first problem with SSNs is
that they are not unique. When Social Security cards were
first issued by post offices, different post offices accidentally
assigned the same SSN to different people. In 1938 wallet
manufacturer E. H. Ferree included sample Social Security
cards in one of its products. More than 40,000 people
purchasing the wallets from Woolworth stores thought the
cards were real and used the sample card’s number as their
SSN [85].
A second defect of SSNs is that they are rarely checked.
Millions of Social Security cards have been issued to
applicants without verifying that the information provided by
the applicants is correct. Many, if not most, organizations
asking for SSNs do not actually require the applicant to show
a card, making it easy for criminals to supply fake SSNs.
A third defect of SSNs is that they have no error-detecting
capability, such as a check digit at the end of the number. A
check digit enables computer systems to detect common dataentry errors, such as getting one digit wrong or transposing
two adjacent digits. If someone makes one of these mistakes,
the data-entry program can detect the error and ask the
person to retype the number. In the case of SSNs, if a person
accidentally types in the wrong number, there is a high
likelihood that it is a valid SSN (albeit one assigned to a
different person). Hence it is easy to contaminate databases
with records containing incorrect SSNs [86]. Similarly,
without check digits or another error-detection mechanism,
there is no simple way for a system to catch people who are
simply making up a phony SSN.
6.9.2 Debate over a
National ID Card
The events of September 11, 2001, resurrected the debate
over the introduction of a national identification card for
Americans.
Proponents of a national identification card point out
numerous benefits to its adoption:
1. A national identification card would be more reliable
than existing forms of identification.
Social Security cards and driver’s licenses are too easy
to forge. A modern card could incorporate a
photograph as well as a thumbprint or other biometric
data.
2. A national identification card could reduce illegal
immigration.
Requiring employers to check a tamper-proof, forgeryproof national identification card would prevent illegal
immigrants from working in the United States. If illegal
immigrants couldn’t get work, they wouldn’t enter the
United States in the first place.
3. A national identification card would reduce crime.
Currently, it’s too easy for criminals to mask their true
identity. A tamper-proof national identification card
would allow police to positively identify the people they
apprehend.
7
4. National identification cards do not undermine
democracy.
Many democratic countries already use national ID
cards, including Belgium, France, Germany, Greece,
Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain.
Opponents of a national identification card suggest these
harms may result from its adoption:
1. A national identification card does not guarantee that
the apparent identity of an individual is that person’s
actual identity.
Driver’s licenses and passports are supposed to be
unique identifiers, but there are many criminals who
produce fake driver’s licenses and passports. Even a
hard-to-forge identification card system may be
compromised by insiders. For example, a ring of motor
vehicle department employees in Virginia was caught
selling fake driver’s licenses [87].
2. It is impossible to create a biometric-based national
identification card that is 100 percent accurate.
All known systems suffer from false positives
(erroneously reporting that the person does not match
the ID) and false negatives (failing to report that the
person and ID do not match). Biometric-based systems
may still be beaten by determined, technology-savvy
criminals [87].
3. There is no evidence that the institution of a national
ID card would lead to a reduction in crime.
In fact, the principal problem faced by police is not the
inability to make positive identifications of suspects but
the inability to obtain evidence needed for a successful
prosecution.
4. A national identification card makes it simpler for
government agencies to perform data mining on the
activities of its citizens.
According to Peter Neumann and Lauren Weinstein,
“The opportunities for overzealous surveillance and
serious privacy abuses are almost limitless, as are
opportunities for masquerading, identity theft, and
draconian social engineering on a grand scale. . . . The
road to an Orwellian police state of universal tracking,
but actually reduced security, could well be paved with
hundreds of millions of such [national identification]
cards” [87].
5. While most people may feel they have nothing to fear
from a national identification card system since they
are law-abiding citizens, even law-abiding people are
subject to fraud and the indiscretions and errors of
others.
Suppose a teacher, a doctor, or someone else in a
position of authority creates a file about an individual
that contains misleading or erroneous information. Files
created by people in positions of authority can be
difficult to remove [88].
In a society with decentralized record keeping, old school or
medical records are less likely to be accessed so that the harm
caused by inaccurate records is reduced. However, if all
records are centralized around national identification
numbers, files containing inaccurate or misleading
information could haunt individuals for the rest of their lives.
6.9.3 The REAL ID Act
In May 2005, President George W. Bush signed the REAL ID
Act, which is significantly changing driver’s licenses in the
United States. The motivation for passing the REAL ID Act
was to make the driver’s license a more reliable form of
identification. Critics, however, say the act is creating a de
facto national ID card in the United States.
8
The REAL ID Act requires that every state issue new driver’s
licenses. These licenses will be needed in order to open a
bank account, fly on a commercial airplane, enter a federal
building, or receive a government service, such as a Social
Security check. The law makes it more difficult for impostors
to get driver’s licenses because it requires applicants to supply
four different kinds of documentation, which is verified by
state employees using federal databases. Because the new
driver’s license contains a biometric identifier, it is supposed
to be a stronger credential than previous licenses [89].
Although each state is responsible for issuing new driver’s
licenses to its citizens, these licenses must meet federal
standards. The license must include the person’s full legal
name, date of birth, gender, driver’s license number, digital
photograph, legal address, and signature. All data on the
license must be in machine-readable form. The license must
have physical security features designed to prevent tampering,
counterfeiting, or duplication [90].
Supporters of the measure say making the driver’s license a
more reliable identifier will have numerous benefits. Law
enforcement is easier when police can be more certain that a
driver’s license correctly identifies the individual carrying it.
Society is better off when parents ducking child support and
criminals on the run cannot change their identities by
crossing a state border and getting a new driver’s license
under a different name [91].
Some critics fear having machine-readable information on
driver’s licenses will aggravate problems with identity theft.
Each state is required to share all driver’s license information
with every other state and with the federal government.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Timothy Sparapani
said, “We will have all this information in one electronic
format, in one linked file, and we’re giving access to tens of
thousands of state DMV employees and federal agents” [92].
Proponents of the bill say such fears are unjustified. They
suggest that the personal information available on the new
driver’s license is relatively insignificant compared to all the
other personal information circulating around cyberspace
[91].
The Department of Homeland Security repeatedly pushed
back the deadline for implementing the new driver’s license
because of significant opposition in the states. Legislatures in
about half the states passed laws or resolutions opposing the
REAL ID Act, and many states passed laws prohibiting the
expenditure of state funds to implement the requirements of
the REAL ID Act.
However, most states have now taken steps to come into
compliance with the REAL ID Act to ensure their citizens will
not face air travel restrictions when the Department of
Homeland Security begins to require approved identification
cards for commercial flights. The remaining states and US
territories have been granted extensions by the Secretary of
Homeland Security. Travelers 18 years of age and older will
need REAL ID-compliant driver's licenses or ID cards by
May 7, 2025, in order to use them as identification for
domestic airline flights [93].
6.10 Information
Dissemination
We now consider the information dissemination category of
Solove’s taxonomy. After we survey three federal laws that
restrict the dissemination of personal information that
organizations have collected, we discuss the Freedom of
Information Act, designed to promote open government by
allowing news organizations and private citizens to access
records maintained by federal agencies. We explore how
information collected by the government for one purpose—
collecting tolls—is being used as evidence of people’s
whereabouts in both criminal and civil cases. Finally, we
summarize an important US Supreme Court decision limiting
police access to cell phone records.
9
6.10.1 Family Education
Rights and Privacy Act
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
provides students 18 years of age and older the right to
review their educational records and to request changes to
records that contain erroneous information. Students also
have the right to prevent information in these records from
being released without their permission, except under certain
circumstances. For students under the age of 18, these rights
are held by their parents or guardians. FERPA applies to all
educational institutions that receive funds from the US
Department of Education.
6.10.2 Video Privacy
Protection Act
In 1988 President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert
Bork to the US Supreme Court (Figure 6.5). Bork was a noted
conservative, and his nomination was controversial. A
Washington, DC, video store provided a list of Bork’s video
rental records to a reporter for the Washington City Paper,
which published the list. While the intention of the paper was
most likely to embarrass Bork, it also had the effect of
prompting Congress to pass the Video Privacy Protection Act
of 1988. According to this law, video providers (including
providers of online videos) cannot disclose rental records
without the written consent of the customer. In addition,
organizations must destroy personally identifiable
information about rentals within a year of the date when this
information is no longer needed for the purpose for which it
was collected.
Figure 6.5
Judge Robert Bork, a nominee to the US Supreme Court, had to endure the
publication of his video rental records by the Washington City Paper.
(Charles Tasnadi/AP Images)
0
6.10.3 Health Insurance
Portability and
Accountability Act
As part of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, Congress directed the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to come
up with guidelines for protecting the privacy of patients.
These guidelines went into effect in April 2003. They limit
how doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and insurance companies
can use medical information collected from patients.
The regulations attempt to limit the exchange of information
among health care providers to that information necessary to
care for the patient. They forbid health care providers from
releasing information to life insurance companies, banks, or
other businesses without specific signed authorization from
the person being treated. Health care providers must provide
their patients with a notice describing how they use the
information they gather. Patients have the right to see their
medical records and to request corrections to errors they find
in those records [94].
6.10.4 Freedom of
Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act is a law designed to ensure
that the public has access to US government records. Signed
into law by President Johnson in 1966, it applies only to the
executive branch of the federal government, not the
legislative or judicial branches. The act carries a presumption
that the government will release the requested records. If an
agency does not disclose records, it must explain why the
information is being withheld.
There are nine exemptions in the Freedom of Information
Act, spelling out those situations in which the government
may legitimately withhold information. For example, a
document may be withheld if it has been classified as secret
for national defense or foreign policy reasons. The
government may withhold the release of documents
containing trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information. Another exemption deals with
documents related to law enforcement investigations.
6.10.5 Tollbooth Records
Used in Court
E- ZPass is an automatic toll collection system used on most
toll roads, bridges, and tunnels in the Midwest and Eastern
United States. Drivers who have installed an E-ZPass tag (an
RFID transponder) in their vehicles are able to pass through
tollbooths without stopping to pay an attendant. Instead, an
E-ZPass reader installed in the automated toll lane gets
information from the tags of the cars that pass through and
deducts the appropriate toll from each driver’s account.
The New York State Department of Transportation
(NYSDOT) has installed tag readers at locations other than
tollbooths in order to track the progress of individual
vehicles. In this way the system can provide helpful
information to other drivers by displaying on electronic signs
above the turnpike the estimated time to reach popular
destinations. According to the NYSDOT, the system encrypts
information from individual tags, deletes the information as
soon as the vehicle passes the last reader, and never makes
information about individual cars available to the department
[95].
1
However, states do maintain records of when cars pass
through tollbooths, and most of the states in the E-ZPass
network provide information in response to court orders in
criminal and civil cases. A well-known example is the case of
Melanie McGuire, a New Jersey nurse suspected of
murdering her husband and throwing his dismembered
corpse into Chesapeake Bay. To help prove their case against
McGuire, prosecutors used E-ZPass records to reconstruct
her movements. E-ZPass records are also playing a role in
divorce cases by providing evidence of infidelity [96].
6.10.6 Carpenter v. United
States
In 2010–11 a series of nine armed robberies occurred at
Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in the Detroit area. In each
case the robbers made off with sacks of cell phones. The
police arrested four suspects in 2011. One of them confessed
to the robberies, named his accomplices, and provided the
FBI with the cell phone numbers of some of them [97].
Based on this information, the prosecutors sought court
orders under the Stored Communications Act to obtain the
cell phone records of Timothy Carpenter. The Stored
Communications Act simply requires prosecutors to show
that it is reasonable to believe the requested information is
relevant to their investigation. That is an easier standard to
meet than the demonstration of probable cause needed to get
a search warrant. Federal magistrate judges approved the
orders, and two wireless providers supplied 127 days of cell
phone location records for Carpenter: 12,898 location points
in all, averaging 101 data points per day [97].
Prosecutors charged Carpenter with “six counts of robbery
and six counts of carrying a firearm during a federal crime of
violence” [97]. Carpenter’s lawyer moved to suppress the
evidence provided by the wireless carriers, arguing that the
government’s seizure of these records without a search
warrant violated the Fourth Amendment to the US
Constitution. The District Court denied the motion because
of the third-party doctrine, which holds that people should
not expect that information voluntarily given to third parties
will be kept private. In this case, the wireless carriers were the
third parties maintaining the location information from
Carpenter’s cell phones. During the trial, witnesses testified
that Carpenter was the mastermind behind the robberies:
planning them, supplying the guns, and serving as the
lookout [98]. Prosecutors used the location information
obtained by the wireless carriers to provide additional
evidence that placed Carpenter at the scene of four of the
robberies. Carpenter was found guilty on nearly all counts
and was sentenced to more than 100 years in prison [97].
Carpenter’s case went all the way to the US Supreme Court,
which in June 2018 ruled 5–4 that the prosecutors had erred
in “mechanically applying the third-party doctrine to this
case” [97]. According to the majority opinion, written by
Chief Justice Roberts, “Cell phone location information is
not truly ‘shared’ as the term is normally understood” [97].
Therefore, the prosecutors violated the Fourth Amendment
when they seized Carpenter’s cell phone records without a
search warrant. The opinion noted wireless carriers are
continually logging location information for all 400 million
cell phones in the United States, not just those belonging to
suspects in criminal investigations. “[W]e hold that an
individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in
the record of his physical movements as captured through
[cell-site location information]. The location information
obtained from Carpenter’s wireless carriers was the product
of a search” [97].
2
6.11 Invasion
Earlier in Chapter 5 we described privacy as a “zone of
inaccessibility.” People have information privacy to the
extent that they have some control over who has access to
their personal information. In quite a few modern situations,
people may have very little control; they must cede access to
their personal information if they wish to use the service
provided. If the loss of control is accompanied by a loss of
tranquility or interferes with someone’s freedom of decision
making, that is a privacy invasion, according to Solove. We
begin this section by giving two examples of government
actions to prevent invasion and then move on to survey two
government actions that can be seen as invasive.
6.11.1 Telemarketing
After being sworn in as chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) in 2001, Timothy Muris looked for an
action that the FTC could take to protect the privacy of
Americans. It did not take long for the FTC to focus on
telemarketing. A large segment of the American population
views dinnertime phone calls from telemarketers as an
annoying invasion of privacy. In fact, Harris Interactive
concluded that telemarketing is the reason why the number
of Americans who feel it is “extremely important” not to be
disturbed at home rose from 49 percent in 1994 to 62
percent in 2003 [99]. Responding to this desire for greater
privacy, the FTC created the National Do Not Call Registry
(www.donotcall.gov), a free service that allows people who
do not wish to receive telemarketing calls to register their
phone numbers. The public reacted enthusiastically to the
availability of the Do Not Call Registry by registering more
than 50 million phone numbers before it even took effect in
October 2003 [100, 101].
The Do Not Call Registry has not eliminated 100 percent of
unwanted solicitations. The regulations exempt political
organizations, charities, and organizations conducting
telephone surveys. Even if your phone number has been
registered, you may still receive phone calls from companies
with which you have done business in the past 18 months.
The creation of the registry is a good example of how privacy
is seen as a prudential right: the benefit of shielding people
from telemarketers is judged to be greater than the harm
caused by putting limits on telephone advertising.
6.11.2 Loud Television
Commercials
Television watchers complained to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) about loud commercials
for fifty years. The Commercial Advertisement Loudness
Mitigation Act (CALM Act), signed into law by President
Barack Obama in December 2010, required the Federal
Communications Commission to ensure that television
commercials are played at the same volume as the programs
they are interrupting.
3
6.11.3 Requiring
Identification for
Pseudoephedrine
Purchases
In an effort to curb the illegal production of
methamphetamine (“meth”), federal and state governments
have passed laws limiting access to products containing
pseudoephedrine, which is used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine. The Combat Methamphetamine
Epidemic Act limits the quantity of pseudoephedrine that an
individual can purchase in a month. Whether the laws have
been effective is a matter of debate. In most states, original
Sudafed is still sold behind the counter to adults, but they
must show an identification card and fill out a sales log with
their name, address, and signature. Two states, Oregon and
Mississippi, require a prescription to acquire a product
containing pseudoephedrine. In several well publicized cases,
grandparents purchasing cold medicine for members of their
families have been arrested by police for exceeding limits set
on pseudoephedrine purchases [102].
6.11.4 Advanced Imaging
Technology Scanners
In an effort to provide enhanced passenger security at
airports, the Transportation Security Administration began
deploying advanced imaging technology (AIT) scanners in
2007. Some AIT scanners use backscatter X-rays to produce
a detailed image of the passenger’s body, and other scanners
use millimeter waves. The TSA began testing AIT systems at
Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport in 2007 [103].
When the first AIT system was deployed, passengers who
failed the primary security screening could choose between
the X-ray scan and a traditional pat-down search. In June
2011, the Transportation Security Administration announced
that it had already deployed 500 AIT units and would deploy
an additional 500 units, enabling it to use this technology to
screen 60 percent of all airline passengers in the United States
[104]. Even as it was busily deploying systems, the TSA was
battling critics.
Some people were offended at the images produced by AIT
scanners, which reveal “all anatomical features” (Figure 6.6)
[105]. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union called
the AIT scan a “virtual strip-search” [106]. In July 2010, the
Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit to
suspend the deployment of AIT systems, pending further
review. EPIC called the program “unlawful, invasive, and
ineffective,” arguing that it violated the Privacy Act, the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth
Amendment to the US Constitution [107].
Figure 6.6


In February 2011, the Transportation Security
Administration announced that it was about to begin testing
new software on its advanced imaging technology machines
that would eliminate passenger-specific images. TSA
Administrator John Pistole said that the new system “autodetects potential threat items and indicates their location on a
generic outline of a person” [108]. The tests were successful, 
and in January 2013 the TSA announced that all body
scanners producing passenger-specific images would be
removed from airport checkpoints by June 2013 [109].
4
Summary
It’s only natural that people want government to leave them
alone, but they also expect government to keep them safe and
secure through effective policing and a strong national
defense. Frequently, the constitutional guarantees in the Bill
of Rights come into conflict with the desires of law
enforcement agencies to gather information that can help
them apprehend criminals. Through legislation,
administrative policies, and court decisions, the three
branches of the US government have been engaged in an
attempt to find the right balance between competing
concerns.
In this chapter we looked at the role that federal, state, and
local governments have played in protecting and eroding the
information privacy of individual citizens. We organized our
presentation using the taxonomy of privacy proposed by
Daniel Solove, which divides the field into four categories:
information collection, information processing, information
dissemination, and invasion. We reviewed legislation and
administrative policies that protect the information privacy of
individuals by restricting how organizations can collect,
process, and disseminate information as well as limit the
extent to which they can intrude into people’s daily lives. We
also looked at ways in which governments have promoted
public safety and security by collecting, processing, and
disseminating personal information and intruding into
people’s lives.
5
We surveyed many governmental activities related to
information collection. The federal government maintains
extensive databases containing a vast amount of information
about individual Americans, and from time to time
information in these databases has been misused. The
government also collects information through overt and
covert surveillance.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, concerns
about individual privacy took a backseat to concerns about
national security, and significant changes occurred in the
government’s activities related to information collection,
information processing, and invasion. The Patriot Act
amended many laws and enhanced the ability of law
enforcement agencies to gather information about suspected
terrorists and criminals. The National Security Agency
illegally acquired records of domestic phone calls from
telecommunications companies and performed data mining in
an attempt to find calling patterns indicating the presence of
terrorist networks. The Transportation Security
Administration installed invasive advanced imaging
technology scanners at airport security checkpoints. As the
horizon of the September 11 attacks has receded, the public’s
discomfort with many of these operations has increased, and
some of them have been scaled back.
The Social Security number is an important identifier in the
United States, but it has many flaws. The US Congress passed
the REAL ID Act that created a new federal standard for
driver’s licenses. Once every state comes into compliance, the
driver’s license will probably become the most trusted form
of identification in the United States, a de facto national
identification card.
Further Reading, Listening,
and Viewing
Julia Angwin. “One of the Last Bastions of Digital
Privacy Is Under Threat.” New York Times, June 13,
2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/opinion/encryptionmessaging-privacy-signal-whatsapp.html.
James Bamford. “The Black Box.” Wired, April 2012.
Dan Boylan. “Is the Notion of Privacy Outdated?”
Insights on PBS Hawaii, July 11, 2013. 56:49.
video.pbs.org.
Patrick A. Hafner. “Naked Citizens.” Journeyman
Pictures, May 2013. 32:41.topdocumentary
films.com/naked-citizens.
Mikko Hypponen. “How the NSA Betrayed the
World’s Trust—Time to Act.” TEDxBrussels, October
2013. 19:14.
www.ted.com/talks/mikko_hypponen_how_the_nsa_betrayed_
Paul Mozur, Muyi Xiao, and John Liu. “‘An Invisible
Cage’: How China Is Policing the Future.” New York
Times, June 25, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/technology/chinasurveillance-police.html.
Emily Mullin. “A Rape Survivor Gave Police Her DNA.
They Linked Her to Another Crime.” WIRED,
February 24, 2022. https://www.wired.com/story/arape-survivor-gave-police-her-dna-they-linked-her-toanother-crime.
Emily Mullin. “Police Used a Baby’s DNA to
Investigate Its Father for a Crime.” WIRED, August 15,
2022. https://www.wired.com/story/police-used-ababys-dna-to-investigate-its-father-for-a-crime/.
6
Paul Ohm. “Legalese: The ‘Third Party Doctrine’ and
Carpenter v. United States.” Georgetown Law, June 25,
2018. 2:19. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZH9BdpCrg.
Daniel J. Solove. “Why Privacy Matters Even If You
Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’” Chronicle of Higher
Education, May 15, 2011.
Hari Sreenivasan. “Rise of Domestic Drones Draws
Questions About Privacy.” PBS News-Hour, April 18,
2013. 7:30. video.pbs.org.
Margaret Warner. “Surveillance Court Can’t Stop NSA
from Violating Privacy.” PBS News-Hour, August 16,
2013. 6:33. video.pbs.org.
Review Questions
1. Determine the relationship between the categories of
Daniel Solove’s taxonomy of privacy and the following
definitions of privacy proposed by other authors:
Privacy is the right to be left alone. (Warren and
Brandeis)
Privacy is control over who knows what about
us. (Rachels)
Privacy is the appropriate flow of personal
information. (Nissenbaum)
2. How did the position of the US Supreme Court toward
wiretapping evolve over time? Cite the key cases.
3. Give three examples of legislation passed by the US
Congress designed to protect the privacy of residents of
the United States.
4. Give three examples of US government agencies
successfully achieving their ends using data legally
obtained from residents of the United States.
5. Give three examples of US government agencies
illegally collecting or disseminating information about
residents of the United States in order to achieve their
ends.
6. What are telephony metadata? Briefly summarize the
history of the controversy surrounding the collection of
telephony metadata by the National Security Agency
after 9/11.
7. Describe similarities and differences between these
covert surveillance programs of the US government:
Operation Shamrock, Carnivore, PRISM, NSA
wiretapping after 9/11, NSA collection of telephony
metadata after 9/11.
8. What are the implications of the Stored
Communications Act for all those who let an Internet
service provider handle their email?
9. Why has the expanded use of National Security Letters
raised privacy concerns?
10. Briefly summarize in your own words the five tenets of
the Code of Fair Information Practices.
11. Robert Bellair has said, “The Privacy Act, it turns out,
is no protection at all. You can drive a truck through
the Privacy Act” [75, p. 212]. Why do Bellair and other
privacy advocates feel the Privacy Act of 1974 is a
weak piece of legislation?
12. What actions has the US Congress taken to help ensure
people aren’t disadvantaged by poor credit ratings
because of erroneous or obsolete information?
7
13. Give three examples of how information collected by a
government for one purpose has been used for an
entirely different purpose.
14. What are the problems with using the Social Security
number as an identification number?
15. Give two arguments in favor of a national
identification card for the United States. Give two
arguments against creating a national identification
card.
16. For each category in Daniel Solove’s taxonomy of
privacy, give one example of a law passed by the US
Congress protecting individual privacy of that type.
Discussion
Questions
17. Do you think local governments should increase the use
of video cameras at intersections to help ensure drivers
who run red lights are identified and ticketed?
18. Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma have passed
laws that require lifetime monitoring of some convicted
sex offenders after they have been released from prison.
The offenders must wear electronic ankle bracelets and
stay close to small GPS transmitters, which can be
carried on a belt or in a purse. Computers monitor the
GPS signals and alert law enforcement officials if the
offenders venture too close to a school or other offlimits area. Police interested in the whereabouts of a
monitored person can see their location, traveling
direction, and speed plotted on a map [110].
Do these laws represent an unacceptable weakening of
personal privacy, or are they sensible public safety
measures? Should they be repealed? Should people
convicted of other crimes also be monitored for life?
Would there be less crime if everyone in society were
monitored?
19. Think about what you do when you get up in the
morning. How would you act differently if you knew
you were being watched? Would you feel
uncomfortable? Do you think you would get used to
being watched?
20. Discuss the following responses to the revelation that
telecommunications companies provided domestic
phone call records to the National Security Agency
[111].
President George Bush: “Al-Qaeda is our enemy,
and we want to know their plans.”
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont: “Are you telling
me tens of millions of Americans are involved with
al-Qaeda?”
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona: “We are in a war, and
we have got to collect intelligence on the enemy.”
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa: “Why are the
telephone companies not protecting their
customers? They have a social responsibility to
people who do business with them to protect our
privacy as long as there isn’t some suspicion that
we’re a terrorist or a criminal or something.”
8
21. When asked about Google releasing personal
information to law enforcement agencies, Google’s
CEO Eric Schmidt told CNBC: “If you have something
that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you
shouldn’t be doing it in the first place” [58]. Discuss
Mr. Schmidt’s perspective.
22. Was the US government’s $2 million settlement with
Brandon Mayfield reasonable and just?
23. In order to combat the counterfeiting of currency, the
US Secret Service convinced several color laser printer
manufacturers to add a secret code to every printed
page. The code is invisible to the human eye but can be
seen under a microscope. When decrypted, it reveals
the serial number of the printer and the time and date
the page was printed [112].
By agreeing to secretly insert the codes, did the
printer manufacturers violate the privacy rights of
their customers?
24. What special responsibilities do computer professionals
have with respect to understanding and protecting the
privacy rights of their fellow citizens?
In-Class Exercises
25. The Code of Fair Information Practices applies only to
government databases. Debate the advantages and
disadvantages of extending the Code of Fair
Information Practices to private databases managed by
corporations.
26. A database containing the DNA information of every
citizen of a country could be a valuable resource to
medical researchers. It could also help police solve
crimes. Debate the following proposition: It would be
in the best interests of society if the government
constructed a DNA database of every resident and
made the database available to medical researchers and
law enforcement agencies.
27. Debate the proposition that every adult resident of the
United States ought to carry a national identification
card.
28. Debate the following proposition: By creating the
Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON)
database, which enabled citizens to report on each
other’s activities, the US government effectively reduced
freedom of speech.
References
[1] Ben Popper. “How the NYPD Is Using Social Media to
Put Harlem Teens Behind Bars.” The Verge (Web site),
December 10, 2014.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/10/7341077/nypdharlem-crews-social-media-rikers-prison.
[2] “Stop the Government’s Massive Privacy Invasion.”
American Civil Liberties Union (Web site). Accessed
July 13, 2023. https://action.aclu.org/sendmessage/stop-governments-massive-privacy- invasion.
9
[3] Bryon Tau and Michelle Hackman. “Federal Agencies
Use Cellphone Location Data for Immigration
Enforcement; Commercial Database That Maps
Movements of Millions of Cellphones Is Deployed by
Immigration and Border Authorities.” Wall Street
Journal, February 7, 2020.
[4] Jason Kelley and Matthew Guariglia. “Ring Reveals
They Give Videos to Police Without User Consent or a
Warrant.” Electronic Frontier Foundation (Web site),
July 15, 2022.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/ring-reveals-
they-give-videos- police-without-user-consent-orwarrant.
[5] Daniel J. Solove. Understanding Privacy. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008.
[6] Natasha Singer. “Epic Games to Pay $520 Million Over
Children’s Privacy and Trickery Charges.” New York
Times, December 19, 2022.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/business/ftc-epicgames-settlement.html.
[7] “GINA: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act of 2008: Information for Researchers and Health
Care Professionals.” Department of Health and Human
Services, USA, April 6, 2009. www.genome.gov.
[8] Stephanie L. Hitt. “NCIC 2000.” FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 69(7): 12–15, July 2000.
Accessed July 14, 2023. le.fbi.gov/informationaltools/ncic.
[9] Federal Bureau of Investigation. National Crime
Information Center (Web page).
[10] “National Data Exchange (N-DEx).” Federal Bureau of
Investigation (Web site). Accessed July 14, 2023.
https://le.fbi.gov/informational-tools/national-dataexchange-n-dex.
[11] Kasey Wertheim. “Recent Improvements to the FBI’s
National Data Exchange (N-DEx).” Police Chief.
Accessed July 14, 2023.
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/recentimprovements-to-the-fbis-ndex/.
[12] John T. Eberth. “Nation’s First Surveillance Cameras
Were Installed in Olean.” Olean Times Herald, October
5, 2008. www.oleantimesherald.com.
[13] Jurgita Lapienyte. “This Is the Most Heavily Surveilled
City in the US: 50 CCTV Cameras per 1,000 Citizens.”
Cybernews (Web site), September 28, 2021.
https://cybernews.com/editorial/this-is-the-most-heavilysurveilled- city-in-the-us-50-cctv-cameras-per-1000citizens/.
[14] Chris Dolmetsch. “Cameras to Catch Terrorists Triple
in New York with Bomb Plots.” Bloomberg, November
13, 2010. www.bloomberg.com.
[15] Jamie Roth. “Bloomberg in London to Study Security
System.” WABC Local News, May 11, 2010.
abclocal.go.com/wabc/.
[16] Jennifer Lee. “Study Questions Whether Cameras Cut
Crime.” New York Times, March 3, 2009.
[17] M. Angela Sasse. “Privacy and Security: Not Seeing the
Crime for the Cameras?” Communications of the ACM,
53(2): 22–25, February 2010.
[18] Patrick Grother, Mei Ngan, and Kayee Hanaoka. “Face
Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT), Part 3: Demographic
Effects.” National Institute of Standards and
Technology, NISTIR 8280, December 2019.
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pdf.

0
[19] Clare Garvie. “A Forensic without the Science: Face
Recognition in U.S. Criminal Investigations.” Center on
Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law, December
6, 2022.
https://mcusercontent.com/672aa4fbde73b1a49df5cf61f/files/2
d325-335d-5d4e-84066159df71/
Forensic_Without_the_Science_Face_Recognition_in_U.S._Crim
[20] Paresh Dave. “U.S. Cities Are Backing Off Banning
Facial Recognition as Crime Rises.” Reuters, May 12,
2022. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-cities-arebacking-off-banning-facial-recognition-crime-rises2022-05-12/.
[21] James R. Healey, Greg Toppo, and Fred Meier. “You
Can’t Hide from Cops with License-Plate Scanners.”
USA Today, July 18, 2013. www.usatoday.com.
[22] Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo. “With Cameras,
Informants, NYPD Eyed Mosques.” Associated Press,
February 23, 2012. www.ap.org.
[23] “Automated License Plate Readers—State Statutes
Regulating Their Use.” National Conference of State
Legislatures, February 2, 2015. www.ncsl.org.
[24] Federal Aviation Administration. “Fact Sheet—
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)” (press release).
February 19, 2013. www.faa.gov.
[25] Maggie Clark. “States Seek Legal Limits on Domestic
Drones.” Stateline, February 22, 2013.
www.pewstates.org.
[26] Monmouth University. “US Supports Some Domestic
Drone Use” (press release). June 12, 2012.
[27] Maggie Clark. “Boston Bombings Show Future Use for
Police Drones.” Stateline, May 2, 2013.
www.pewstates.org.
[28] Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau. Privacy on the
Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
[29] Priscilla M. Regan. Legislating Privacy. University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, 1995.
[30] Justice Brandeis, Dissenting. Supreme Court of the
United States. Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438
(1928).
[31] Supreme Court of the United States. Katz v. United
States, 389 US 347 (1967).
[32] James Bamford. The Puzzle Palace: A Report on
America’s Most Secret Agency. Penguin Books, New
York, NY, 1983.
[33] Heinz Tschabitscher. “How Carnivore Email
Surveillance Worked.” About.com. Accessed October
15, 2013. email.about.com.
[34] Holly E. Ventura, J. Mitchell Miller, and Mathieu
Deflem. “Governmentality and the War on Terror: FBI
Project Carnivore and the Diffusion of Disciplinary
Power.” Critical Criminology, 13(1): 55–70, January
2005.
[35] US District Court, Central District of California,
Western Division. “In the Matter of the Application of
the United States of America for an Order Authorizing
the Installation of a Pen Register and Trap and Trace
Device.” Criminal No. 99-2713M, February 4, 2000.
[36] Kevin Poulsen. “FBI Retires Its Carnivore.”
SecurityFocus, January 14, 2005.
www.securityfocus.com.
1
[37] James Risen and Eric Lichtblau. “Bush Lets US Spy on
Callers Without Courts.” New York Times, December
16, 2005.
[38] Lisa Myers, Douglas Pasternak, Rich Gardella, and the
NBC Investigative Unit. “Is the Pentagon Spying on
Americans?” MSNBC.com, December 14, 2005.
[39] Samantha Henig. “Pentagon Surveillance of Student
Groups Extended to Scrutinizing E-mail.” Chronicle of
Higher Education, 52(46): 18, July 21, 2006.
[40] “No Real Threat: The Pentagon’s Secret Database on
Peaceful Protest.” American Civil Liberties Union,
January 17, 2007. www.aclu.org.
[41] Siobhan Gorman. “Intelligence Policies Shift: Pentagon
Spy Chief Rolling Back Some of Rumsfeld’s Strategies.”
Baltimore Sun, May 26, 2007.
[42] Nate Anderson. “US to Shutter DoD TALON Database
as It Works on Replacement.” Ars Technica (Web site),
August 21, 2007. www.arstechnica.com.
[43] Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill. “NSA Prism
Program Taps In to User Data of Apple, Google and
Others.” Guardian, June 6, 2013.
[44] Orin S. Kerr. “The Case for the Third-Party Doctrine.”
Michigan Law Review, 107: 561–601, February 2009.
[45] David Kravets. “Yahoo, Feds Battle over E-mail
Privacy.” Threat Level: Privacy, Crime and Security
Online, Wired, April 14, 2010. www.wired.com.
[46] Ryan Singel. “Google, Microsoft Push Feds to Fix
Privacy Laws.” Threat Level: Privacy, Crime and
Security Online, Wired, March 30, 2010.
www.wired.com.
[47] Nancy Gohring. “FCC Inflates CALEA.” Telephony,
237(10): 8, September 6, 1999.
[48] Charlotte Twight. “Conning Congress.” Independent
Review, 6(2): 185, Fall 2001.
[49] Kirk Laughlin. “A Wounded CALEA Is Shuttled Back
to the FCC.” America’s Network, 104(15): 22, October
1, 2000.
[50] “FCC Requires Certain Broadband and VoIP Providers
to Accommodate Wiretaps.” Federal Communications
Commission, August 5, 2005. www.fcc.gov.
[51] “USA PATRIOT Act: Major Provisions of the 2001
Antiterrorism Law.” Congressional Digest, 82(4): 110–
112, April 2003.
[52] Pete Yost. “FBI Access to E-mail, Web Data Raises
Privacy Fear.” Associated Press, July 30, 2010.
seattletimes.nwsource.com.
[53] “Annual Statistical Transparency Report: Regarding the
Intelligence Community’s Use of National Security
Surveillance Authorities, Calendar Year 2021.” Office
of Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency, Office of
the Director of National Intelligence, United States of
America, April 2022.
https://www.dni.gov/files/CLPT/documents/2022_ASTR_for_C
[54] American Civil Liberties Union. “With Help of ACLU,
Connecticut Library Group Successfully Keeps Patron
Records Private” (press release). June 26, 2006.
www.aclu.org.
[55] “PATRIOT Act Fears Are Stifling Free Speech, ACLU
Says in Challenge to Law.” American Civil Liberties
Union, New York, NY, November 11, 2003.
www.aclu.org.
2
[56] American Library Association. “Resolution on the USA
PATRIOT Act and Related Measures That Infringe on
the Rights of Library Users.” 2003 ALA Midwinter
Meeting, 2002–2003 CD #20.1, January 29, 2003.
www.ala.org.
[57] Bill of Rights Defense Committee (Web site). Accessed
September 2, 2011. www.bordc.org.
[58] Cade Metz. “Google Chief: Only Miscreants Worry
About Net Privacy.” Register, December 7, 2009.
www.theregister.co.uk.
[59] Tom Ridge. “Using the PATRIOT Act to Fight
Terrorism.” Congressional Digest, 83(9): 266–268,
November 2004.
[60] Ben Jacklet and Todd Murphy. “Now Free, Attorney
Brandon Mayfield Turns Furious.” Washington Report
on Middle East Affairs 23(6), July/August 2004.
[61] Dan Eggen. “Flawed FBI Probe of Bombing Used a
Search Warrant.” Washington Post, April 7, 2005.
[62] Eric Lichtblau. “U.S. Will Pay $2 Million to Lawyer
Wrongly Jailed.” New York Times, November 30,
2006. www.localnewsdaily.com.
[63] Andrew Murr, Michael Isikoff, Eric Pape, and Mike
Elkin. “The Wrong Man.” Newsweek 143(23), June 7,
2004.
[64] Ron Wyden. “Wyden Warns of Potential Public
Backlash from Allowing Secret Law.” YouTube(video),
uploaded May 27, 2011. youtube.com/watch?
v=vMAX_Frj8xM.
[65] Glenn Greenwald. “NSA Collecting Phone Records of
Millions of Verizon Customers Daily.” Guardian, June
5, 2013.
[66] “White House Defends NSA Order to Verizon to
Reveal Call Data.” UPI, June 6, 2013. www.upi.com.
[67] Charlie Savage and Edward Wyatt. “Verizon Case
Offers Glimpse of Vast N.S.A. Surveillance.” New York
Times, June 6, 2013.
[68] Dan Roberts and Spencer Ackerman. “Anger Swells
After NSA Phone Records Court Order Revelations.”
Guardian, June 6, 2013.
[69] Charlie Savage and Jonathan Weisman. “N.S.A.
Collection of Bulk Call Data Is Ruled Illegal.” New
York Times, May 7, 2015. www.nytimes.com.
[70] Jennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman. “U.S.
Surveillance in Place Since 9/11 Is Sharply Limited.”
New York Times, June 2, 2015. www.nytimes.com.
[71] Carl Kaysen. “Data Banks and Dossiers.” Public
Interest, 7: 52–60, Spring 1967.
[72] G. Russell Pipe. “Privacy: Establishing Restrictions on
Government Inquiry.” American University Law
Review, 18: 516–551, 1969.
[73] US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
“Code of Fair Information Practices.” Secretary’s
Advisory Committee of Automated Personal Data
Systems, Records, Computers, and the Rights of
Citizens, 1973.
[74] Robert Gellman. “Fair Information Practices: A Basic
History.” July 15, 2011. bobgellman.com.
[75] William Petrocelli. Low Profile: How to Avoid the
Privacy Invaders. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1981.
3
[76] “Fact Sheet 24: Protecting Financial Privacy.” Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse, July 14, 2005.
www.privacyrights.org.
[77] “Tracking Methanol Poisonings Associated with
Recalled Hand Sanitizer Products in Arisona, July–
October 2020.” National Syndromic Surveillance
Program (NSSP), Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, June 16, 2023.
https://www.cdc.gov/nssp/success-stories/TrackingMethanol- Poisonings.html.
[78] Leslie Cauley. “NSA Has Massive Database of
Americans’ Phone Calls.” USA Today, May 11, 2006.
[79] Wayne Rash. “Federal Court Finds NSA Wiretaps
Unconstitutional.” eWeek.com, August 18, 2006.
www.eweek.com.
[80] Kate Crawford and Jason Schultz. “Big Data and Due
Process: Toward a Framework to Redress Predictive
Privacy Harms.” Boston College Law Review, 55(1):
93–128, January 29, 2014. lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu.
[81] Kashmir Hill. “How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl
Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did.” Forbes,
February 16, 2012. www.forbes.com.
[82] Matthew Barakat. “Terrorist Database Continues to
Grow at Rapid Rate.” Big Story (Web site), July 18,
2014. bigstory.ap.org.
[83] Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux. “The Secret
Government Rulebook for Labeling You a Terrorist.”
Intercept, July 23, 2014. firstlook.org.
[84] “A Brief History of Social Security.” Social Security
Administration, USA, August 2000.
[85] “Social Security Cards Issued by Woolworth.” Social
Security Administration, USA. Accessed October 15,
2013. www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/misused.html.
[86] “Extent of Social Security Number Discrepancies.”
Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and
Human Services, USA. OAI-06-89-01120, January
1990.
[87] Peter G. Neumann and Lauren Weinstein. “Risks of
National Identity Cards.” Communications of the
ACM, 44(12): 176, December 2001.
[88] Richard Turner. Letter to the Editor. Times, London,
September 7, 2001.
[89] Declan McCullagh. “FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect
You.” New York Times, May 6, 2005.
[90] “REAL ID Act of 2005 Driver’s License Title
Summary.” Real Nightmare.org (Web site). Accessed
October 15, 2013.
www.realnightmare.org/images/File/NCSL_Summary_of_Real_
[91] Dennis Bailey. The Open Society Paradox: Why the
21st Century Calls for More Openness—Not Less, p.
42 Potomac Books, Washington, DC, 2004.
[92] Joseph Menn. “Federal ID Act May Be Flawed.” Los
Angeles Times, May 31, 2005.
[93] “Be Your REAL ID Self.” Department of Homeland
Security, United States of America. Accessed July 17,
2023. https://www.dhs.gov/real-id.
[94] “Protecting the Privacy of Patients’ Health
Information.” Department of Health and Human
Services, USA, April 14, 2003. www.hhs.gov/news.
[95] New York State Department of Transportation.
“NYSDOT Announces Travel Time Signs in Staten
Island” (press release). July 10, 2007. www.nysdot.gov.
4
[96] Chris Newmarker. “E-ZPass Records Out Cheaters in
Divorce Court.” Associated Press, August 10, 2007.
www.msnbc.com.
[97] C. J. Roberts. Supreme Court of the United States.
Carpenter v. United States, 16–402 (2018).
[98] Adam Liptak. “In Ruling on Cellphone Location Data,
Supreme Court Makes Statement on Digital Privacy.”
New York Times, June 22, 2018.
[99] Humphrey Taylor. “Most People Are ‘Privacy
Pragmatists’ Who, While Concerned About Privacy,
Will Sometimes Trade It Off for Other Benefits.”
HarrisInteractive, Harris Poll #17, March 19, 2003.
[100] James Toedtman. “Court Unblocks Do Not Call
Registry in Latest Ruling.” Sun-Sentinel, Fort
Lauderdale, FL, October 8, 2003.
[101] Heather Fleming Phillips. “Consumers Can Thank DoNot-Underestimate FTC Chairman for Do-Not-Call
Peace.” San Jose Mercury News, January 2, 2004.
[102] Radley Balko. “As It Turns Out, Meth Laws Have
Unintended Consequences.” Washington Post, October
14, 2014. www.washingtonpost.com.
[103] Ginger D. Richardson. “Revealing X-Ray Machine Set
to Scan Sky Harbor Flyers.” Arizona Republic,
February 23, 2007.
www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic.
[104] Statement of John S. Pistole, Administrator,
Transportation Security Administration, Before the US
House of Representatives. Committee on Homeland
Security, Subcommittee on Transportation Security,
June 2, 2011. www.tsa.gov.
[105] Melissa Cheung. “New Airport X-Ray Too Revealing?”
CBS News, February 11, 2009. www.cbsnews.com.
[106] Paul Giblin and Eric Lipton. “New Airport X-Rays
Scan Bodies, Not Just Bags.” New York Times,
February 24, 2007.
[107] “Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners
(‘Backscatter’ X-Ray and Millimeter Wave Screening).”
Electronic Privacy Information Center (Web site).
Accessed July 9, 2011.
epic.org/privacy/airtravel/backscatter/.
[108] Transportation Security Administration. “TSA Begins
Testing New Advanced Imaging Technology Software”
(press release). February 1, 2011.
[109] Mike M. Ahlers. “TSA Removing ‘Virtual Strip Search’
Body Scanners.” CNN, January 18, 2013.
www.cnn.com.
[110] David A. Lieb. “States Move on Sex Offender GPS
Tracking.” Associated Press, July 30, 2005.
[111] Susan Page. “NSA Secret Database Report Triggers
Fierce Debate in Washington.” USA Today, May 11,
2006.
[112] John P. Mello Jr. “Codes Make Printers Stool Pigeons.”
E-Commerce Times, October 18, 2005.
www.ecommercetimes.com.
Chapter 7
Computer
and
Network
Security
5
7.1 Introduction
DO YOU HAVE A HOME NETWORK? IF SO, THERE IS
A MODEM THAT LINKS your network to the Internet and
a wireless router that connects with your devices. Usually the
two functions are combined into a single device. Have you
changed the default administrator password on the router? If
not, it may be compromised. More than 500,000 routers are
infected with malware capable of stealing passwords and
intercepting financial information [1].
Do you ever go to a coffee shop and use its open wireless
network to surf the Web? That’s risky behavior. Freely
available software gives any nearby computer user the ability
to break into the accounts of people accessing Web sites
through password-free wireless networks.
In the movie Live Free or Die Hard, a terrorist organization
hacks into a variety of computer and communication systems
to seize control of traffic lights, natural gas pipelines, and
electrical power grids. Are such episodes purely the stuff of
Hollywood fiction, or could they really happen?
This chapter focuses on threats to computer and network
security. Millions of people and most businesses rely upon
computers and the Internet to conduct their affairs, making
the security of these systems an important issue. Without
adequate security, computers are vulnerable to criminal
enterprises that introduce malicious software to reap valuable
financial information or extort payments from computer
users. Computers can also be co-opted and used as weapons
by governments seeking to further their political aims by
sponsoring attacks on the cyber infrastructure of their
enemies.
We begin our survey with examples of individuals using
cunning or skill to gain unauthorized access to computer
systems.
7.2 Hacking
In the 1983 movie WarGames, a teenager breaks into a
military computer and nearly causes a nuclear Armageddon.
After seeing the movie, a lot of teenagers were excited at the
thought that they could prowl cyberspace with a home
computer and a modem. A few of them became highly
proficient at breaking into government and corporate
computer networks. These actions helped establish the
everyday meaning of the word “hacker.”
6
Today’s hackers are people who gain unauthorized access to
computers and computer networks. An example of the
modern use of this word is a story in the July 20, 2023, issue
of the New York Times, which contains an obituary for
Kevin Mitnick, “best known for an audacious hacking spree
in the 1990s” [2].
7.2.1 How Hackers Get
Passwords
Typically, you need a login name and password to access a
computer system, but good hackers are adept at guessing
short or predictable passwords. In 2013 Ars Technica asked
three hackers to attack a list of 16,000 hashed passwords.
Using computers, the hackers generated candidate passwords
from strings of characters, hashed the candidates, and then
checked the hashes against the list, looking for matches. The
least successful hacker spent one hour on the task and
identified 62 percent of the passwords. The most successful
hacker worked for 20 hours and identified 90 percent of the
passwords, using a commodity PC equipped with an AMD
Radeon 7970 graphics card [3].
Hackers employ brute-force methods to guess shorter
passwords. Passwords are constructed from a set of 95
characters: 26 uppercase letters, 26 lowercase letters, 10
digits, and 33 symbols. That means there are 95 passwords of
length 1, 952 passwords of length 2, 953 passwords of length
3, and so on. The total number of passwords up to length 6 is
about 744 billion. That may seem like a lot of passwords to
you, but a computer can try all of these combinations in just
a few minutes.
Hackers use dictionary attacks to guess longer passwords.
Armed with lists of words that commonly appear in
passwords, they generate candidate passwords using a variety
of strategies, such as combining words, inserting random
characters before or after the words, and replacing characters
in words with random characters.
In the experiment conducted by Ars Technica, the hackers’
dictionary attacks identified a surprising number of long
passwords, including “Apr!l221973,” “ilovetofunot,”
“BandGeek2014,” “ilovemySister31,” and “Philippians4:67” [3].
Sidebar: Responsible
Computer Users Take
Passwords Seriously
Here is a list of password dos and don’ts from
security experts [3, 4, 5].
Do not use short passwords. Modern
computers can quickly crack short passwords.
As a general rule, the longer a password is, the
less likely it is to be guessed. Choose
passwords with at least 11 characters.
Do not rely solely on words from the
dictionary. Again, such a password is too easy
to crack. Make sure your passwords include
numbers, as well as upper- and lowercase
letters.
317
Do not rely on substituting numbers for letters
(e.g., replacing “E” with “3” and “A” with
“4”). Password-cracking programs know these
tricks.
Do not reuse passwords. If accounts share
passwords, as soon as one account is
compromised, the other ones are, too. If you
must write down your passwords on a piece of
paper in order to remember them, that is safer
than reusing passwords in today’s
environment where an online attack is a
greater danger than someone rummaging
through your desk. (Of course, you should put
sensitive documents like password lists in a
locked drawer.)
Give ridiculous answers to security questions.
That way they serve as a secondary password.
Example: What is your pet’s name? Ford
Fiesta.
Enable two-factor authentication if available.
When you log in from an unfamiliar
computer, the system will send you a text
message with a confirmation code.
Have password recoveries sent to a secure
email address. You don’t want hackers to
know where your password reset messages are
sent. Have these messages sent to an account
you never use to send email.
Other techniques for obtaining login names and passwords
are decidedly low-tech. Eavesdropping, such as simply
looking over the shoulder of a legitimate computer user to
learn their login name and password, is a common way that
hackers gain access to computers. Dumpster diving means
looking through garbage for interesting bits of information.
Companies typically do not put a fence around their
dumpsters. In midnight rummaging sessions, hackers have
found user manuals, phone numbers, login names, and
passwords. Social engineering refers to the manipulation of a
person inside the organization to gain access to confidential
information. Social engineering is easier in large
organizations where people do not know each other very
well. For example, a hacker may identify a system
administrator and call that person, pretending to be the
supervisor of their supervisor and demanding to know why
they can’t access a particular machine. In this situation, a
cowed system administrator, eager to please their boss’s boss,
may be talked into revealing or resetting a password [6].
Login credentials have been stolen from many organizations,
and they are sold to hackers who try them on other sites.
Every day, more than 20 million accounts are probed with
stolen credentials. Hackers also gain login credentials
through phishing attacks that trick users into revealing their
passwords [7].
You probably have many online accounts. Choosing
appropriate passwords for your accounts is a good first step
(see sidebar). However, as the previous discussion makes
clear, simply choosing a difficult-to-guess password is no
longer sufficient to make your accounts reasonably secure.
There are too many ways that hackers can gain access to this
information.
To guard against hackers who have obtained your login
credentials, you should set up your accounts to require
multiple authenticators. Multifactor authentication is a
protocol that requires two or more authenticators to verify a
person’s identity before giving them access to the requested
service. For example, after verifying your login name and
password, a multifactor authentication system will text you a
six-digit code that you must enter before you can access your
account. In this way, a hacker who obtains your login name
and password but doesn’t have access to your cell phone
cannot access your account. According to Microsoft,
enabling multifactor authentication blocks over 99.9 percent
of account-compromising attacks [8].
8
7.2.2 Penalties for Hacking
Under US law, the maximum penalties for hacking are severe.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act criminalizes a wide
variety of hacker-related activities, including
Transmitting code (such as a virus or worm) that causes
damage to a computer system
Accessing without authorization any computer
connected to the Internet, even if no files are examined,
changed, or copied
Transmitting classified government information
Trafficking in computer passwords
Computer fraud
Computer extortion
The maximum penalty imposed for violating the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act is 20 years in prison and a $250,000
fine.
Another federal statute related to computer hacking is the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act. This law makes it
illegal to intercept telephone conversations, email, or any
other data transmissions. It also makes it a crime to access
stored email messages without authorization.
The use of the Internet to commit fraud or transmit funds can
be prosecuted under the Wire Fraud Act and/or the National
Stolen Property Act. Adopting the identity of another person
to carry out an illegal activity is a violation of the Identity
Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.
7.2.3 Selected Hacking
Incidents
Despite potentially severe penalties for convicted hackers,
computer systems continue to be compromised by outsiders.
Many break-ins are orchestrated by organized groups with a
high degree of expertise, but others are committed by solo
hackers who exploit a security weakness.
In 2003 a hacker broke into computers at the University of
Kansas and copied the personal files of 1,450 international
students studying in the United States. The files contained
names, Social Security numbers, passport numbers, countries
of origin, and birth dates. The University of Kansas had
collected the information in one place in order to comply
with a Patriot Act requirement that it report the information
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service [9]. In a
similar incident two years later, an intruder broke into a
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, computer containing
personal information on 5,000 international students
studying in the United States [10].
In March 2005, someone discovered a security flaw in the
online-admissions software produced by ApplyYourself and
used by six business schools. The discoverer posted
instructions on a Business Week online forum explaining
how business school applicants could circumvent the
software security system and take a look at the status of their
applications. It took ApplyYourself only nine hours to fix the
flaw, but in the interim period hundreds of eager applicants
had exploited the bug and peeked at their files. A week later,
Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that they
would not admit any of the applicants who had accessed
their computer systems without authorization [11].
9
A hacker gained access to the Sesame Street channel on
YouTube in October 2011, changed the home page, and
replaced the videos with pornographic material. The site
streamed the X-rated content for 22 minutes before Google
could shut down the site [12].
7.2.4 FBI and the Locked
iPhone
On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen
Malik brought assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns
into the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino,
California, and opened fire at a holiday gathering, killing 14
people and seriously wounding 22 more. Around the time of
the shooting Malik pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.
Farook and Malik fled the event but died in a shootout with
the police four hours later [13].
Farook and Malik, who were married, had destroyed their
personal cell phones before leaving home, but the FBI
recovered Farook’s work-issued iPhone 5C. The FBI was
eager to collect evidence from Farook’s iPhone. The FBI
obtained a warrant to search the contents of the phone, and
the owner of the phone, Farook’s employer, consented to the
search. However, the iPhone was locked, and the FBI did not
know the four-digit passcode. The iPhone’s software was
designed so that if ten consecutive incorrect passcodes were
entered, the iPhone’s encryption key would be erased,
rendering all personal data stored on the iPhone permanently
inaccessible. In February 2016 the FBI asked Apple to create
a new version of the iOS operating system that would disable
the ten-erroneous-passcode limit on the iPhone, as well as the
feature that slows down subsequent passcode-entry attempts
when incorrect passcodes are entered. When Apple refused to
cooperate, the FBI convinced a US magistrate to issue an
order for Apple to comply with the government’s request
[14]. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, responded to the court
order by issuing a public statement that if Apple produced a
“backdoor” version of iOS that circumvented key security
features, and that version fell into the wrong hands, it would
enable criminals to unlock any iPhone they possessed [15].
The Department of Justice countered that the argument was
fallacious because Apple could “maintain custody of the
software” and “destroy it after its purpose under the Order
has been served” [14]. Apple chose to fight the Department
of Justice in court rather than comply with the FBI’s request.
About a month later, before the case could go to trial, the
Department of Justice stopped its legal effort to get Apple to
cooperate, declaring that it had successfully unlocked
Farook’s iPhone [16].
Two years later, a report by the inspector general of the
Department of Justice revealed that the leader of the FBI’s
Cryptographic and Electronic Analysis Unit, which was in
charge of the investigation, decided to take legal action
against Apple before thoroughly exploring whether another
unit inside the FBI, the Remote Operations Unit, had the
capability to unlock the phone without Apple’s help. Senator
Ron Wyden of Oregon accused the FBI of being more
interested in establishing a legal precedent than gaining access
to the terrorist’s iPhone [17].
0
7.2.5 Case Study: Firesheep
Only a small fraction of the information transported by the
Internet is encrypted; everything else is sent “in the clear”
using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). Encrypting
everything would make Internet communications slower and
more expensive, which is why most Web sites use encryption
only when communicating the most sensitive information,
such as usernames, passwords, and credit card numbers. You
can tell when a Web site is encrypting the communication
because the start of the address in the Web browser is
“https://” (meaning “secure Hypertext Transfer Protocol”).
The widespread use of Wi-Fi to connect to the Internet has
exposed a vulnerability caused by Internet packets being sent
in the clear. A Wi-Fi network uses radio signals to
communicate between devices. If the wireless access point is
not using encryption, it’s easy for devices within range to
snoop on the network traffic. (Encryption is the process of
protecting information by transforming it into a form that
cannot be understood by anyone who does not possess the
key, that is, the means of reversing the process and recreating
the original information.)
Sidejacking is the hijacking of an open Web session by the
capturing of a user’s cookie, giving the attacker the same
privileges as the user on that Web site. (You can find an
explanation of cookies in Section 5.3.15.) Ecommerce Web
sites typically use encryption to protect the username and
password people provide when logging in, but they do not
encrypt the cookie that the Web browser sends to the user to
continue the session. Sidejacking is possible on unencrypted
wireless networks because another device on the wireless
network can “hear” the cookie being transmitted from the
Web site back to the user’s computer. Even though the
Internet security community had known and complained
about the sidejacking vulnerability for years, ecommerce Web
sites did not change their practices.
On October 24, 2010, Eric Butler released an extension to
the Firefox browser called Firesheep. Firesheep makes it easy
for a Firefox user to sidejack open Web sessions. The user
starts the Firefox browser, connects to an open Wi-Fi
network, and clicks on a button called “Start Capturing.”
When someone using the network visits an insecure Web site
that Firesheep knows about, the user’s name and photo are
displayed in a sidebar, along with the name of the Web site
he is connected to, such as Amazon, Facebook, or Twitter. By
double-clicking on the photo, the attacker becomes logged in
as that user on that Web site and is able to do the same
things that the legitimate user is able to do, such as post
status messages and purchase products.
Butler released Firesheep as free, open-source software for
Mac OS X and Windows. In Butler’s view, the organizations
managing Web sites have a responsibility to protect the
privacy of the people using those sites. Since the
organizations had been ignoring this responsibility, it was
time for users to step up and demand greater security.
Firesheep was a way to help make that happen [18].
The Firesheep extension was downloaded more than 500,000
times in its first week of availability, and it attracted a great
deal of media attention [19]. The typical story warned social
network users about the dangers of using unencrypted
wireless public networks and criticized the social network
companies for not providing more security [20, 21, 22, 23].
Responding to criticism for providing a tool that makes it
easy for ordinary computer users to perform sidejacking,
Butler pointed out that sidejacking tools had been available
for years before he released Firesheep. He wrote, “Criminals
already know this, and I reject the notion that something like
Firesheep turns otherwise innocent people evil” [24].
1
Three months after Butler released Firesheep, Facebook made
the following announcement:
Starting today we’ll provide you with the ability to experience
Facebook entirely over HTTPS. You should consider enabling this
option if you frequently use Facebook from public Internet access
points found at coffee shops, airports, libraries or schools. The
option will exist as part of our advanced security features, which
you can find in the “Account Security” section of the Account
Settings page. [25]
In March 2011, Twitter announced it was offering an
“Always use HTTPS” option [26].
Act-Utilitarian Analysis
The release of Firesheep led the media to focus on the risks
associated with the use of certain Web sites from unsecured
wireless networks, and a few months later Facebook and
Twitter made their Web sites more secure. There continues to
be strong pressure for other Web services to follow suit.
These are tremendous benefits for everyone who accesses the
Web at a public Internet access point without encryption.
Butler was right when he predicted that Firesheep would not
turn people into criminals. Even though half a million people
downloaded Firesheep in the first week, there was no
evidence of a big increase in identity theft or even malicious
pranks. The harms caused by Firesheep appeared to be
minimal. Because the release of Firesheep caused great
benefits and negligible harm, we conclude it was a good
action from a utilitarian point of view.
Virtue-Ethics Analysis
Butler demonstrated civic responsibility by using his technical
skills to develop Firesheep, a piece of software that
dramatically illustrated, even to nontechnical people, the lack
of security when unencrypted HTTP messages are sent over
an unencrypted Wi-Fi network. On the day he released
Firesheep, Butler pointed out on his blog that side-jacking
attacks are simple to execute because cookies are wirelessly
broadcast without encryption. Web sites haven’t eliminated
this problem even though it has been discussed for a long
time. He continued:
Facebook is constantly rolling out new “privacy” features in an
endless attempt to quell the screams of unhappy users, but what’s
the point when someone can just take over an account entirely?
[18]
Butler explained that he released Firesheep to point out the
gravity of the problem [18]. Responding to criticisms of his
action, he stated emphatically that it is wrong for anyone to
harm another person. He did not create Firesheep to facilitate
evil; instead, his goal was to make people aware of a problem
that had been ignored for too long [24]. All of these
statements are characteristic of someone truly interested in
protecting the privacy of visitors to popular Web sites. Butler
exhibited courage by taking personal responsibility for
creating Firesheep, and he demonstrated benevolence by
making it freely available.
2
Therefore, from the perspective of virtue ethics, Butler’s
actions and statements were characteristic of someone
interested in promoting the common good. He seemed to
sincerely believe that something significant needed to be done
to get the companies to change their privacy policies.
Kantian Analysis
To begin with, accessing someone else’s user account is an
invasion of that person’s privacy and is wrong. Butler clearly
agrees with this perspective because he refers to people who
sidejack accounts as “evil.” Butler’s goal was to pressure
Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and other Web sites to adopt
proper security measures to protect their users. He saw the
best way to achieve this end was to release a tool that would
bring to light a well-known security problem that had not
gotten sufficient attention.
Criminals already knew how to sidejack Web sessions before
Butler created Firesheep. What Firesheep did was make
sidejacking so simple that even ordinary computer users
could do it. More than half a million copies of Firesheep were
downloaded in the first week, and undoubtedly some of these
people actually used the software to sidejack Web sessions,
which is wrong. It is disingenuous for Butler to “reject the
notion that something like Firesheep turns otherwise innocent
people evil.” He provided a tool that made it much simpler
for people to do something that is wrong, and therefore he
has some moral accountability for the misdeeds of the people
who downloaded Firesheep.
Ultimately, Butler was willing to tolerate a short-term
increase in privacy violations in the hope that users would
pressure Facebook, Twitter, and other sites to improve their
security, which would result in fewer privacy violations in the
long term. In other words, he was willing to use the people
targeted by Firesheep as a means to his end. From a Kantian
perspective, it was wrong for Butler to release Firesheep to
the public.
There are other ways Butler could have achieved his goal
without using other people. For example, he could have gone
on a popular television show and hacked into the host’s
Facebook page, generating a great amount of publicity
without having to release the software [27].
7.3 Malware
The Firesheep extension to the Firefox browser highlights a
significant security weakness of unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.
Computers have security weaknesses, too, and there are a
variety of ways in which malicious software, or malware, can
become active on your computer. If you are lucky, these
programs will do nothing other than consume a little CPU
time and some disk space. If you are not so lucky, they may
destroy valuable data stored in your computer’s file system.
An invading program may even allow outsiders to seize
control of your computer. Once this happens, they may use
your computer as a depository for stolen credit card
information, a Web server dishing out pornographic images,
or a launch pad for spam or a denial-of-service attack on a
corporate or government server.
3
7.3.1 Viruses
Viruses represent one way in which malicious code can get
into a computer. A virus is a piece of self-replicating code
embedded within another program called the host [28].
Figure 7.1 illustrates how a virus replicates within a
computer. When a user executes a host program infected
with a virus, the virus code executes first. The virus finds
another executable program stored in the computer’s file
system and replaces the program with a virus-infected
program. After doing this, the virus allows the host program
to execute, which is what the user expected to happen. If the
virus does its work quickly enough, the user may be unaware
of the presence of the virus.
Figure 7.1

One way a computer virus can replicate. (a) A computer user executes
program P, which is infected with a virus. (b) The virus code begins to
execute. It finds another executable program Q and creates a new version


of Q infected with the virus. (c) The virus passes control to program P. The 
4
Because a virus is attached to a host program, you may find
viruses anywhere you can find program files: hard disks,
thumb drives, CD-ROMs, email attachments, and so on.
Viruses can be spread from machine to machine via thumb
drives or CDs. They may also be passed when a person
downloads a file from the Internet. Sometimes viruses are
attached to free computer games that people download and
install on their computers.
Today many viruses are spread via email attachments (Figure
7.2). We are all familiar with ordinary attachments such as
photos, but attachments may also be executable programs or
word-processing documents or spreadsheets containing
macros, which are small pieces of executable code. If the user
opens an attachment containing a virus, the virus takes
control of the computer, reads the user’s email address book,
and uses these addresses to send virus-contaminated emails to
others, as illustrated in Figure 7.3.

Figure 7.2



Figure 7.3

How an email virus spreads. A computer user reads an email with an
attachment (1). The user opens the attachment, which contains a virus (2).
The virus reads the user’s email address book (3). The virus sends emails
with virus-containing attachments (4).
Some viruses are fairly innocent; they simply replicate. These
viruses occupy disk space and consume CPU time, but the
harm they do is relatively minor. Other viruses are malicious
and can cause significant damage to a person’s file system.
Commercial antivirus software packages allow computer
users to detect and destroy viruses lurking on their
computers. To be most effective, users must keep antivirus
software up-to-date by downloading patterns corresponding
to the latest viruses from the vendor’s Web site.
Unfortunately, many people are negligent about keeping their
virus protection software up-to-date. According to the
statistics office of the European Union, a survey of Internet
users revealed that 31 percent of them had experienced a
computer virus in the previous 12 months that had resulted
in a loss of information or time, even though 84 percent of
them said that their computer was running antivirus software
[29]. That means they were not keeping their virus protection
current.
To make matters worse, criminals have found a way to profit
from people’s concern about viruses and their eagerness to
install antivirus software when they believe their systems are
infected. In July 2011, more than two million PCs were
infected with a fake antivirus application that actually routed
traffic destined for Google through intermediate servers
controlled by the attacker. The purpose of the malware
appeared to be to generate “click-through” income for the
hackers by directing people to Web sites containing fake
security programs [30].
5
7.3.2 The Internet Worm
A worm is a self-contained program that spreads through a
computer network by exploiting security holes in the
computers connected to the network (Figure 7.4). The
technical term “worm” comes from The Shockwave Rider, a
1975 science-fiction novel written by John Brunner [31].
Figure 7.4
A worm spreads to other computers by exploiting security holes in
computer networks.
The most famous worm of all time was also the first one to
get the attention of the mainstream media, which is why it is
popularly known as the Internet worm, even though many
other worms have been created that propagate through the
Internet. The primary source for this narrative is the excellent
biography of Robert Morris in Cyberpunk: Outlaws and
Hackers on the Computer Frontier, written by Katie Hafner
and John Markoff [32].
Background of Robert Tappan Morris Jr.
Robert Tappan Morris Jr. began learning about the Unix
operating system when he was still in junior high school. His
father was a computer security researcher at Bell Labs, and
young Morris was given an account on a Bell Labs computer
that he could access from a teletype at home. It didn’t take
him long to discover security holes in Unix. In a 1982
interview with Gina Kolata, a writer for Smithsonian
magazine, Morris admitted he had broken into networked
computers and read other people’s email. “I never told myself
that there was nothing wrong with what I was doing,” he
said, but he acknowledged that he found breaking into
systems challenging and exciting, and he admitted that he
continued to do it.
6
As an undergraduate at Harvard, Morris majored in
computer science. He quickly gained a reputation for being
the computer lab’s Unix expert. After his freshman year,
Morris worked at Bell Labs. The result of his work was a
technical paper describing a security hole in Berkeley Unix.
While at Harvard, Morris was responsible for several
computer pranks. In one of them, he installed a program that
required people logging in to answer a question posed by
“the Oracle” and then to ask the Oracle another question.
(The Oracle program worked by passing questions and
answers among people trying to log in.)
Designing the Worm
Morris entered the graduate program in computer science at
Cornell University in the fall of 1988. He became intrigued
with the idea of creating a computer worm that would
exploit bugs he had found in three Unix applications: ftp,
sendmail, and fingerd. His “wish list” for the worm had about
two dozen goals, including the following:
Infect three machines per local area network
Only consume CPU cycles if the machines are idle
Avoid slow machines
Break passwords in order to spread to other computers
The goal of the worm was to infect as many computers as
possible. It would not destroy or corrupt data files on the
machines it infected.
7
Launching the Worm
On November 2, 1988, Morris learned that a fix for the ftp
bug had been posted to the Internet, meaning his worm
program could no longer take advantage of that security
hole. However, nobody had posted fixes to the other two
bugs Morris knew about. After making some last-minute
changes to the worm program, he logged into a computer at
the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab and launched the worm
from that computer at about 7:30 p.m.
The worm quickly spread to thousands of computers at
military installations, medical research facilities, and
universities. Unfortunately, due to several bugs in the worm’s
programming, computers became infected with hundreds of
copies of the worm, causing them to crash every few minutes
or become practically unresponsive to the programs of
legitimate users.
Morris contacted friends at Harvard to discuss what ought to
be done next. They agreed that Andy Sudduth would
anonymously post a message to the Internet. Sudduth’s
message is shown here.1 Harvard’s computers were not
affected (the security holes had already been patched), and
you can tell from the last sentence that Sudduth was having a
hard time believing Morris’s story:
A Possible virus report:
There may be a virus loose on the internet. Here is the gist
of a message I got:
I’m sorry.
Here are some steps to prevent further transmission:
1) don’t run finger, or fix it to not overrun its stack when
reading arguments. 2) recompile sendmail w/o DEBUG defined 3)
don’t run rexed
Hope this helps, but more, I hope it is a hoax.
Sudduth’s email was supposed to get routed through a
computer at Brown University. However, computers at
Brown were already infected with the worm and did not have
spare cycles to route the message. Also, the email did not
have a subject line, which made it less likely to be read during
a crisis. The result is that the message was read too late to be
of any help to those fighting the worm.
System administrators at various universities worked
frantically to stop the spread of the worm. Within a day they
had examined the worm’s code, discovered the bugs in
sendmail and fingerd, and published fixes to the Internet
community. No one knows exactly how many computers
were infected by the worm, but it did make a significant
number of systems unusable for a day or two [33].
After some sleuthing by reporter John Markoff, the New
York Times named Robert Tappan Morris Jr. as the author
of the worm. Morris was suspended from Cornell University.
A year later, he was the first person to receive a felony
conviction under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He
was sentenced to three years’ probation and 400 hours of
community service, and was fined $10,000. His legal fees and
fines exceeded $150,000.
8
Ethical Evaluation
Was Robert Morris Jr. wrong to unleash the Internet worm?
A Kantian evaluation must focus on Morris’s will. Did
Morris have good will? His stated goal was to see how many
Internet computers he could infect with the worm. While
Morris did not want to crash these computers or destroy any
data stored on them, his motivation was fundamentally
selfish: he wanted the thrill of seeing his creation running on
thousands of computers. He used others because he gained
access to their machines without their permission. There is
also evidence Morris knew he was using others: he took
measures designed to prevent people from discovering that he
was the author of the worm. From a Kantian point of view,
Morris’s action was wrong.
From a social-contract point of view, Morris’s action was
also wrong. He violated the property rights of the individuals
and organizations whose computers were infected by the
worm. They had the right to determine who would use their
computers, and they attempted to enforce this right by
requiring people to identify themselves by user-name and
password. Morris took advantage of security holes in these
computers to gain unauthorized access to them. When his
worm caused these computers to become unresponsive or
crash, he denied access to the legitimate users of these
computers.
A utilitarian evaluation of the case focuses on the benefits
and harms resulting from the spread of the worm. The
principal benefit of the Internet worm was that organizations
managing these Unix computers discovered there were two
significant security holes in their systems. They received the
instructions they needed to patch these holes before a truly
malicious intruder took advantage of them to enter their
systems and do a lot of damage to their data. Of course,
Morris could have produced the same beneficial result simply
by contacting the system administrators at UC Berkeley and
informing them of the security holes he had found.
The Internet worm had numerous harmful consequences. A
large amount of time was spent by system administrators as
they defended their machines from further attacks, tracked
down the problem, installed patches, and brought machines
back on line. There was a disruption in email and fileexchange traffic caused by computers being taken off the
network. About 6,000 computers were unavailable for a day
or two. During this time, many thousands of people were less
productive than they could have been had the systems been
up and running. Morris himself was harmed by his actions.
He was suspended from Cornell and convicted of a felony,
which resulted in a sentence of probation, community service,
and a substantial fine.
Considering all of Morris’s options, it is clear that another
course of action—simply alerting the Unix community to the
bugs—would have produced all of the benefits with none of
the harms. Therefore, from a utilitarian viewpoint, Morris
was wrong to have released the Internet worm.
From the perspective of virtue ethics, Morris’s actions are not
consistent with those of a virtuous person. He selfishly chose
to use the Internet as an experimental laboratory, and he
deceitfully released the worm from MIT rather than Cornell
University. When the worm began spreading uncontrollably,
he avoided taking responsibility for his actions by asking a
trusted friend to post the message to the Internet explaining
how to fight the worm.
In conclusion, Morris may not have been acting maliciously,
but he was acting selfishly. If he had wanted to experiment
with worms, he probably could have gotten permission to try
out his creations on a local area network detached from the
Internet, so that even if his worm multiplied out of control,
there would have been no fallout to the rest of the computer
community. Instead, he chose to use the entire Internet as his
experimental laboratory, inconveniencing thousands of
people.
9
7.3.3 Cross-Site Scripting
Cross-site scripting is another way in which malware may be
downloaded without a user’s knowledge. Web sites that
allow users to read what other users have posted are
vulnerable to this security problem. The attacker injects a
client-side script into a Web site. When an innocent user
visits the site sometime later, the user’s browser executes the
script, which may steal cookies, track the user’s activity, or
perform another malicious action.
7.3.4 Drive-By Downloads
Many malware creators have hacked into legitimate Web
sites and installed software booby traps. In some cases,
simply visiting a compromised Web site can result in the
unintentional downloading of software, called a drive-by
download. Another kind of drive-by download occurs when
a Web surfer encounters a pop-up window asking permission
to download software. The user approves the download,
thinking the code is necessary to view the content on the Web
site, but in actuality the download contains malware.
7.3.5 Trojan Horses and
Backdoor Trojans
A Trojan horse is a malicious computer program designed to
deceive users by concealing a sinister purpose behind a
benign capability. When the user executes a Trojan horse, the
program performs the expected beneficial task. However, the
program is also performing actions unknown to, and not in
the best interests of, the user.
An example of a Trojan horse is Mocmex, first uncovered in
2008 in digital picture frames manufactured in China. It
spread from digital picture frames to computer hard drives
and other portable storage devices people attached to their
PCs. The purpose of the Trojan horse appeared to be to steal
passwords to online computer games [34].
A backdoor Trojan is a Trojan horse that gives the attacker
access to the another person’s computer. For example, a
backdoor Trojan may purport to cleanse malware from a
computer, but in actuality it installs spyware (described
later).
7.3.6 Ransomware
Ransomware is malware designed to extort money from the
person targeted by the attack. It may be installed on a
targeted person’s computer via a drive-by download, a
Trojan horse, an email attachment, or another means. The
ransomware problem began in Russia but began spreading in
a significant way to other countries in 2012 [35].
Early versions of ransomware often used a phony message
from a law enforcement agency to accuse targeted persons of
an illegal activity and to extract “fines” from them. For
example, Reveton locked the targeted person’s computer and
filled the screen with a window containing a message
purporting to be from the FBI or the Department of Justice.
The message informed targeted persons that their IP address
had been associated with some sort of illegal activity, such as
downloading child pornography, and demanded that they
pay a fine using a prepaid money card [36].
0
Today, cryptographic ransomware is a serious problem,
particularly for businesses. Cryptographic ransomware
encrypts all of the files on the targeted person’s computer and
demands payment in return for the key that can be used to
decrypt the files. In 2015 the FBI reported that it had been
contacted by 992 persons targeted by CryptoWall
ransomware, who had paid over $18 million (or about
$18,000 per business) to ransom their files. The FBI
estimated the total number of businesses attacked by
CryptoWall to be much larger because not every targeted
person filed a report with the FBI, and some businesses
abandoned their files rather than pay the ransom [37].
7.3.7 Rootkits
A rootkit is a set of programs that provide privileged access
to a computer. Once installed, a rootkit is activated every
time the computer is booted. Rootkits are difficult to detect
because they start running before the operating system has
completed booting up, and they can use security privileges to
mask their presence.
7.3.8 Spyware and Adware
Spyware is a program that communicates over an Internet
connection without the user’s knowledge or consent. Spyware
programs can monitor Web surfing, log keystrokes, take
snapshots of the computer screen, and send reports back to a
host computer. Spyware is often part of a rootkit. Adware is
a type of spyware that displays pop-up advertisements related
to what the user is doing.
Since people would not intentionally download a spyware
program, spyware must get installed using subterfuge. Free
software downloaded from the Internet often contains
spyware. Alternatively, the spyware may be a Trojan horse,
tricking users into downloading it because they think it serves
a useful purpose. A Trojan horse containing spyware is an
example of a backdoor Trojan. A 2006 survey of US
consumers with broadband Internet connections found that
89 percent of them had spyware on their computers [38].
7.3.9 Bots and Botnets
A bot is a particular kind of backdoor Trojan that responds
to commands sent by a command-and-control program
located on an external computer. The first bots supported
legitimate applications: Internet Relay Chat channels and
multiplayer Internet games. Today, however, bots are
frequently used to support illegal activities. A collection of
bot-infected computers is called a botnet, and a person who
controls a botnet is called a bot herder. Botnets can range in
size from a few thousand computers to over a million
computers. In most cases, people have no idea that their PCs
have been compromised and are part of a botnet.
It’s been estimated that as much as 90 percent of spam is
distributed through botnets [39]. Bots can also be used as
spyware, stealing files or logging keystrokes to gain credit
card numbers or other sensitive information. Botnets can also
be used to support distributed denial-of-service attacks,
which we discuss in Section 7.4.3.
1
The sophistication of bots continues to increase. Computers
typically have signature-based detection schemes to identify
and destroy bots by looking for particular patterns in their
underlying machine code. To counter these detection
schemes, programmers are now creating bots that are able to
spin off functionally equivalent bots with somewhat different
machine code.
Sidebar: Protect Your
Internet-Connected Devices
You can greatly reduce the chances that malware
will infect your computer or your other Internetconnected devices. Taking these steps will help
protect your personal information and help keep
your devices from being co-opted into botnets.
Make sure your computers have the latest
security patches installed. Most malware
exploits vulnerabilities for which security
patches have already been created. That means
they can only infect those computers that have
not been kept up-to-date with the latest
patches.
Install anti-malware tools on your personal
computer. Anti-malware tools are designed to
protect computers against malware, such as
viruses, worms, Trojan horses, adware, and
spyware. Anti-malware software can be used
to scan a computer’s hard drive, detecting files
that appear to contain viruses or spyware, and
deleting the files (with the user’s approval).
Before you purchase a device that connects to
the Internet, make sure its manufacturer is
taking reasonable security precautions. There
are now an amazing number of devices you
can connect to the Internet. Printers,
thermostats, doorbells, security cameras, baby
monitors, pet feeders, fire alarms, and garage
door openers are just a few examples of the
technology called the Internet of Things (IoT).
Any IoT device you purchase should allow
you to change its password. The best devices
make it easy to download security updates
[40].
When you purchase an IoT device,
immediately change the password. An IoT
device without a secure password can become
compromised by malware within minutes of
being connected to the Internet. Change the
device’s password before you use the device,
and choose a secure password (see the
previous sidebar) [40].
If you are changing the default password of an
IoT device you have been using for a while,
turn the device off for 30 seconds after you
have changed the password. Disconnecting the
power will erase the device’s memory, often
removing any malware that may have infected
it [40].
Choose a different password for each of your
devices. By doing so, even if a malevolent
agent should guess the password of one of
your devices, the rest of your devices will still
be secure [40].
Consider replacing insecure IoT devices. If you
cannot change the administrator password of
your device or update its firmware, you should
consider disconnecting the device from the
Internet and purchasing a newer device with
greater security [40].
2
7.3.10 Security Risks
Associated with “Bring
Your Own Device”
Increasingly, companies are allowing employees to bring
personal smartphones, tablets, and laptops to the workplace
and use them for work-related activities. In fact, a survey of
US companies with more than 100 employees revealed that
87 percent of them depend on employees accessing mobile
business apps from their personal smartphones [41].
The “bring your own device” (BYOD) movement brings
numerous benefits. Employers can reduce their hardware and
software expenditures. Employees can use devices they are
more comfortable with, increasing their productivity and job
satisfaction. However, allowing employees to use their own
devices to access the company network, send and receive
email, or access company data introduces security risks.
One of these risks is that company data may be compromised
if the employee’s device is stolen. Some companies have
begun encrypting all data files, to prevent a data breach even
if a personal device containing company data is stolen [42].
Another risk is that if the employee’s device is insecure, it
may provide an avenue for a malevolent agent to break into
the company’s network. For example, in 2017 hackers broke
into the personal computer of an employee of Bithumb, a
South Korean digital currency exchange, and used the PC to
access company files and steal personal data of about 30,000
Bithumb customers [43].
To address security concerns, companies establish BYOD
policies [42]. These policies can address a variety of issues,
including:
What are the security standards for personal devices
(password requirements, anti-malware packages, etc.)?
What applications are employees allowed to run from
their personal devices?
What is the level of support for personal devices that
the company’s IT department will provide?
Does the company have the right to erase all data on a
personal device that has been stolen?
How will company data be removed from the devices of
employees who are leaving the company?
Possible Virus Report by Ruth Kennedy Sudduth. Copyright © by Ruth
ennedy Sudduth. Used by permission of Ruth Kennedy Sudduth.
7.4 Cyber Crime and
Cyber Attacks
The Internet plays a vital role in the economic life of
developed nations. Its effects include streamlining
interactions between manufacturers and their suppliers,
stimulating the creation of new companies, fostering the
development of new business models, making online
videoconferencing much more affordable, and changing how
people shop. Today, there are more than 80 million dot-com
domains. Annual ecommerce sales now exceed $5 trillion
[44]. Given the amount of money changing hands, it’s not
surprising that organized crime is active on the Internet. The
economic importance of Internet-based activities also makes
Internet infrastructure an attractive target for politically
motivated attacks.
3
We begin this section by reviewing three common Internetbased attacks. We then explore how these attacks have been
used as a means to achieve criminal or political ends.
7.4.1 Phishing and Spear
Phishing
A phishing (pronounced “fishing”) attack is a large-scale
effort to gain sensitive information from gullible computer
users. An attacker sends out millions of email messages from
a botnet. The messages inform the recipients that one of their
accounts has been compromised and directs them to connect
to a Web site to resolve the problem. Targeted users that
click on the link encounter an impostor Web site designed to
resemble the genuine ecommerce site. Once on the site, they
are asked for a login name, password, and other private
information. Information collected by the impostor site can
then be used for identity theft.
According to an industry study, there were at least 123,972
phishing attacks worldwide in the second half of 2014. An
interesting development is the increase in phishing attacks on
Chinese ecommerce sites, indicating the growing importance
of the Chinese economy [45].
Spear phishing is a variant of phishing in which the attacker
selects email addresses that target a particular group of
recipients or even one particular person. For example, an
attacker may target older people they have assumed to be
more gullible or members of a group that have access to
valuable information [46].
John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential
campaign, is a famous recipient of a spear-phishing attack.
On March 19, 2016, Podesta received an email, apparently
from Google, that addressed him by name and contained the
ominous message, “Someone just used your password to try
to sign in to your Google Account.” The message went on to
say, “Google stopped this sign-in attempt. You should
change your password immediately.” When Podesta clicked
on the “CHANGE PASSWORD” box and provided his old
and new passwords, he gave Russian hackers access to his
account. In October of 2016, thousands of Podesta’s emails
were published on WikiLeaks. Former secretary of state
Colin Powell suffered a similar attack, and he, too, had some
of his private emails published on the Web during the 2016
presidential campaign [47, 48].
7.4.2 SQL Injection
SQL injection is a method of attacking a database-driven
Web application that has improper security. The attacker
accesses the application like any other client of the
application, but by inserting (injecting) an SQL query into a
text string from the client to the application, the attacker can
trick the application into returning sensitive information.
7.4.3 Denial-of-Service and
Distributed Denial-ofService Attacks
A denial-of-service (DoS) attack is an intentional action
designed to prevent legitimate users from making use of a
computer service [49]. A DoS attack may involve
unauthorized access to one or more computer systems, but
the goal of a DoS attack is not to steal information. Instead,
the aim of a DoS attack is to disrupt a computer server’s
ability to respond to its clients. Interfering with the normal
use of computer services can result in significant harm. A
company selling products and services over the Internet may
lose business. A military organization may find its
communications disrupted. A government or nonprofit
organization may be unable to get its message out to the
public.
4
A DoS attack is an example of an “asymmetric” attack, in
which a single person can harm a huge organization, such as
a multinational corporation or even a government. Since
terrorist organizations specialize in asymmetric attacks, some
fear that DoS attacks will become an important part of the
terrorist arsenal [50, 51].
In a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, the attacker
rents access to a botnet from a bot herder. At the selected
time, the command-and-control computer sends the
appropriate instructions to the bots, which launch their
attack on the targeted system.
7.4.4 Internet-of-Things
Devices Co-opted for DDoS
Attack
On October 21, 2016, a DDoS attack against domain name
service provider Dyn caused Netflix, Twitter, Spotify, Reddit,
PayPal, Pinterest, and media organizations CNN, Fox News,
the Guardian, the New York Times, and the Wall Street
Journal to become unreachable for several hours [52]. Dyn
provides the important service of translating domain names
into numerical IP addresses. When Dyn was swamped with
bogus requests from an enormous botnet, legitimate requests
could not be serviced. What made the DDoS attack
noteworthy was that it was launched by the Mirai botnet,
which consists of malware-infected Internet-of-Things (IoT)
devices, such as network routers, security cameras, and baby
monitors. The DDoS attack on Dyn was particularly
powerful—executed by as many as 100,000 devices [53].
IoT devices are relatively easy for malicious actors to co-opt
because many people install them without changing their
passwords from the factory default settings. Some
inexpensive devices come with no password protections at
all. As a result, millions of IoT devices may already be
infected by malware [54].
7.4.5 Cyber Crime
Criminal organizations have discovered that a great deal of
money can be made from malware, so many of them have
entered the arena, raising the stakes for corporations and
individuals trying to protect their systems and sensitive
information, respectively. Edward Skoudis paints a grim
picture of the contemporary landscape:
Some attackers sell to the highest bidder customized malicious
code to control victim machines. They may rent out armies of
infected systems useful for spam delivery, phishing schemes,
denial-of-service attacks, or identity theft. Spyware companies and
overly aggressive advertisers buy such code to infiltrate and
control victim machines. A single infected machine displaying popup ads, customizing search engine results, and intercepting
keystrokes for financial accounts could net an attacker $1 per
month or more. A keystroke logger on an infected machine could
help the attacker gather credit card numbers and make $1,000 or
more from that victim before the fraud is discovered. With control
of 10,000 machines, an attacker could set up a solid profit flow
from cyber crime. Organized crime groups may assemble
collectives of such attackers to create a business, giving rise to a
malicious code industry. In the late 1990s, most malicious code
publicly released was the work of determined hobbyists, but
today, attackers have monetized their malicious code; their profit
centers throw off funds that can be channeled into research and
development to create more powerful malicious software and
refined business models, as well as to fund other crimes. [46]
5
In the remainder of this section, we review a few well-known
cyber crime incidents.
Jeanson James Ancheta
In 2004 and 2005, Internet café employee Jeanson James
Ancheta created a network of about 400,000 bots, including
computers operated by the US Department of Defense.
Adware companies, spammers, and others paid Ancheta for
the use of these computers. After being arrested by the FBI,
Ancheta pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including
conspiring to violate the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and the
CAN-SPAM Act. In May 2006, a federal judge sentenced
Ancheta to 57 months in prison and required him to pay
$15,000 in restitution to the US government for infecting
Department of Defense computers. Ancheta also forfeited to
the government the proceeds of his illegal activity, including
his 1993 BMW, more than $60,000 in cash, and his
computer equipment [55, 56].
Pharmamaster
Israeli company Blue Security created a spam-deterrence
system for people tired of receiving unwanted email. Blue
Security sold the service to businesses, but individuals could
protect their home computers for free. About half a million
people signed up for this free service. Users loaded a bot
called Blue Frog on their computers. The bot integrated with
Yahoo Mail, Gmail, and Hotmail, checking incoming email
messages for spam. When it discovered a spam message, the
bot would contact a Blue Security server to determine the
source of the email. Then the bot would send the spammer an
opt-out message [57].
Spammers who indiscriminately sent emails to millions of
addresses started receiving hundreds of thousands of opt-out
messages, disrupting their operations. Six of the world’s top
ten spammers agreed to use Blue Security’s filtering software
to remove Blue Frog users from their email lists [57].
One spammer, nicknamed PharmaMaster, did not back
down. He threatened Blue Frog users with messages such as
this one: “Unfortunately, due to the tactics used by Blue
Security, you will end up receiving this message or other
nonsensical spams 20–40 times more than you would
normally” [39]. He followed through on his threats on May
1, 2006, by sending Blue Frog users 10–20 times as much
spam as they would normally receive [57].
The next day PharmaMaster went after Blue Security itself.
He launched a massive DDoS attack from tens of thousands
of bots targeting Blue Security’s servers. The huge torrent of
incoming messages disabled the Blue Frog service. Later
DDoS attacks focused on other companies providing Internet
services to Blue Security. Finally, the spammer targeted the
businesses that paid for Blue Security’s services. When Blue
Security realized it could not protect its business customers
from DDoS attacks and virus-laced emails, it reluctantly
discontinued its service. “We cannot take the responsibility
for an ever-escalating cyberwar through our continued
operations,” wrote Eran Reshef, CEO of Blue Security. “We
are discontinuing all of our anti-spam activities” [57]. Blue
Security’s decision to fight bots with bots—always
controversial—was ultimately unsuccessful.
6
Albert Gonzalez
In 2010 Albert Gonzalez was sentenced to 20 years of
imprisonment after pleading guilty to using an SQL injection
attack to steal more than 130 million credit and debit card
numbers. Some of the credit and debit card numbers were
sold online, leading to unauthorized purchases and bank
withdrawals. The targets of the attacks were Heartland
Payment Systems, 7-Eleven, Hannaford Brothers
Supermarkets, TJX, DSW, Barnes & Noble, OfficeMax, and
the Dave & Buster’s chain of restaurants. Most of the
numbers were stolen from Heartland Payment Systems,
which estimated its losses at $130 million [58, 59].
Avalanche Gang
The Avalanche Gang is the name given to the criminal
enterprise responsible for more phishing attacks than any
other organization. The Anti-Phishing Working Group
(APWG) estimated that the Avalanche Gang was responsible
for two-thirds of all global phishing attacks launched in the
second half of 2009. In the second half of 2010, APWG
noticed that Avalanche had nearly ceased its phishing attacks,
leading APWG to speculate that Avalanche was changing
strategies and focusing on the propagation of spam that
tricks people into downloading the Zeus Trojan horse [60].
Colonial Pipeline
The Colonial Pipeline is one of the largest pipelines in the
United States. Nearly half of all fuel used on the East Coast is
transported from Texas through the Colonial Pipeline [61].
On May 6, 2021, hackers gained access to the Colonial
Pipeline Company’s administrative computing system by
leveraging a reused password exposed in another data
breach. The attackers downloaded nearly 100 gigabytes of
data. The next day, the hackers conducted a ransomware
attack. They encrypted the data on the company’s hard drives
and demanded a ransom of 75 Bitcoins, worth more than $4
million.
There is no evidence the hackers had access to the computers
controlling the actual pipeline, but without the ability to bill
its customers, the company immediately shut down the
pipeline until it could restore its billing system [62].
The company, working with the FBI, paid the ransom to get
a decryption tool from the attackers. The company
immediately got to work restoring its computer systems. The
decryption tool turned out to be so slow that the company
found it quicker to restore its systems from backups [63].
As the shutdown continued, people began panic buying
gasoline, prices jumped, and some gasoline stations ran out
fuel [64]. Restarting the pipeline began on May 12 and took
several days.
The FBI identified the hacker group DarkSide as responsible
for the ransomware attack. A month after the ransomware
attack, the Department of Justice announced that the FBI had
recovered 63.7 Bitcoins of the ransom payment. The
Department of Justice did not explain how the FBI had
gained access to the private key needed to access the Bitcoins
[65].
7
7.4.6 Politically Motivated
Cyber Attacks
A cyber attack is a “computer-to-computer attack that
undermines the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a
computer or information resident on it” [66]. Some nation-
states, terrorist organizations, and allied groups are mounting
politically motivated cyber attacks on the computer and
network infrastructure of their opponents, and some of these
efforts have caused major disruptions.
Estonia (2007)
The small Baltic country of Estonia was part of the Soviet
Union from the end of the Second World War until it became
independent in 1991, and ethnic Russians still make up about
a quarter of its population. In the capital city of Tallinn, a
large bronze statue of a Soviet soldier had long been a point
of controversy between Estonians and Russians. Russians
saw it as a symbol of the sacrifices made by Soviet troops in
the victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War, while
Estonians saw it as a symbol of the oppressive Soviet
occupation.
After 16 years of independence, the Estonian government
decided to relocate the controversial statue from downtown
Tallinn to a Russian military cemetery in the suburbs. They
knew the relocation would be hugely unpopular with the
Russians. In fact, the Russian government had warned that
removing the statue would be “disastrous for Estonians”
[67]. The police were prepared for violence, and although
ethnic Russians rioted for two nights after the statue was
moved, the damage was limited.
The government also expected an attack on its cyber
infrastructure. Sure enough, an attack came, but its
magnitude was greater than anything expected by the
government’s Internet security group. DDoS attacks from
nearly a million computers targeted Estonian government
ministries and all of Estonia’s major commercial banks,
telecommunications companies, and media outlets. To
combat the attacks, much of Estonia’s Internet was made
inaccessible to computers outside the country, and on May
10, 2007, Estonia’s largest bank had to suspend online
services for an hour [67, 68].
In 2009 a group of Russian activists connected with Nashi, a
pro-Kremlin youth group, claimed responsibility for the cyber
attacks [69].
Georgia (2008)
Georgia is another former Soviet republic that gained
independence in 1991. South Ossetia, a region of Georgia
adjacent to Russia, gained de facto autonomy from Georgia
after a brief war in 1991, though it continues to be
recognized as a part of Georgia by the international
community. On August 7, 2008, after provocations by South
Ossetian separatists, Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia.
Russian forces entered South Ossetia on August 8, and
Russian and Georgian troops fought in South Ossetia for
four days. A cease-fire between Georgia and Russia was
signed a week later.
8
The conflict between Georgia and Russia is notable because
even before Russian troops had entered South Ossetia, the
Georgian government suffered a series of DDoS attacks that
affected its ability to communicate with the outside world.
Multiple Web sites went down for hours. The Georgian
government went so far as to switch some of its Web hosting
locations to the United States. American security experts said
they had uncovered evidence of involvement by the Russian
Business Network, a criminal gang located in St. Petersburg,
but there was no clear link to the Russian military [70, 71,
72].
Georgia (2009)
Twitter service was unavailable worldwide for several hours
on August 6, 2009, due to a massive DDoS attack. Max
Kelly, the chief security officer at Facebook, said the attack
was an effort to silence a political blogger from the Republic
of Georgia, citing as evidence the fact that three other sites
used by the activist—Facebook, LiveJournal, and Google—
were also targets of DDoS attacks at the same time [73, 74].
No group took responsibility for the attacks, but some noted
that August 6, 2009, was the first anniversary of the war
between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia [75].
Exiled Tibetan Government (2009)
In 2009 computer security experts uncovered a surveillance
effort targeting the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan
government, and other Tibetans. Some agencies had used
backdoor Trojans to penetrate 1,295 computers in 103
countries, creating a spying system the experts named
GhostNet. When a targeted person opened an email
attachment supposedly containing the translation of a book,
the backdoor Trojan was activated. Each backdoor Trojan
was able to transfer data files and email messages back to the
controlling computer. Even more ominously, it could access
the computer’s microphone, turning the PC into an
eavesdropping station. Some of the researchers that
discovered GhostNet blamed the Chinese government for the
intrusions, but the Chinese government denied responsibility
[76, 77].
United States and South Korea (2009)
A DDoS attack on governmental agencies and commercial
Web sites in the United States and South Korea paralyzed a
third of them over the Fourth of July weekend in 2009.
Targets in the United States included the White House, the
Treasury Department, the Secret Service, the New York Stock
Exchange, and NASDAQ. In South Korea, the targets
included the Blue House (presidential mansion), the Defense
Ministry, and the National Assembly.
The DDoS attack was relatively minor, involving a botnet
containing only 50,000–65,000 computers, compared with
large-scale attacks that may utilize a million computers. Still,
the attack disrupted different networks over a period of days
as it shifted targets, and some sites in South Korea were
unavailable or compromised as late as July 9. South Korea’s
National Intelligence Service blamed the North Korean
government or its sympathizers for the attack, hypothesizing
that the attack was in retaliation for United Nations
sanctions against North Korea. According to computer
experts, it was unlikely the source of the attack would ever be
positively identified because those responsible for the attack
launched it from systems owned by others [78, 79].
9
Iran (2009)
Industrial processes such as chemical plants, oil and gas
pipelines, and electrical power grids require constant
monitoring. In the pre-computer era, monitoring was done by
employees who watched gauges and warning lights, turned
dials, and opened and closed valves. Computers allowed the
automation of centralized monitoring. In the 1980s,
distributed control systems eliminated local control cabinets.
Instead, networks carried information to centralized control
centers. Computer monitors with color-coded fields replaced
the gauges and warning lights. Initially, distributed control
systems were proprietary, but customers asked for “open
systems, common protocols and vendor interoperability”
[80]. They got what they wanted with the advent of
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems
based on the Internet protocol. Internet-based SCADA
systems are less expensive and easier to maintain and
administer than proprietary systems (Figure 7.5). Another
way to save money and time is to allow an outsider to
connect with the SCADA system remotely to perform
diagnostics.
Figure 7.5


I t
t b
d
i
t l
dd t
i iti
(SCADA)
t
These advances carry with them security risks. Allowing
remote diagnostics creates an opportunity for a malicious
outsider to gain access. Many industrial machines contain
embedded microprocessors. Industrial machines last a long

time, which means many of these machines contain older
microprocessors. Security patches designed to ward off
malware may not be available for these microprocessors, and
even if they are available, it may be impractical to install
them because the processor is so slow that it cannot run the
security code and keep up with its machine-control
responsibilities.
The Stuxnet worm, launched in 2009, attacked SCADA
systems running Siemens software [81]. The worm appeared
to target five industrial facilities in Iran, and it may have
caused a temporary shutdown of Iran’s nuclear program by
infecting computers controlling centrifuges processing
uranium [82, 83]. About 1,000 of Iran’s 5,000 centrifuges
were damaged in the cyberattack. Developing and launching
the worm was a cooperative effort between the United States
and Israel [84, 85].
0
Cyber Espionage Attributed to the People’s
Liberation Army
American computer security firm Mandiant spent nearly a
decade investigating hundreds of computer security breaches
in more than a dozen countries and tracing those breaches
back to the organized groups responsible for them. One of
these groups, labeled APT1 (for advanced persistent threat 1),
was responsible for at least 141 intrusions over a seven-year
period. In 2013 Mandiant released a report stating that the
APT1 group was located in Shanghai, China, and most likely
was Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army [86].
According to Mandiant, APT1 was responsible for stealing
hundreds of terabytes of data from the 141 organizations
whose computer networks it compromised. One of these
organizations was Telvent Canada, which provides SCADA
systems to oil, gas, and electrical power companies. After
Telvent Canada became aware of the security breach, it
notified its customers and cut off access to their SCADA
systems from its computers in the hope of preventing a
remote attack [87].
In response to the allegations made by Mandiant, Hong Lei,
a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry, stated that China
enforces laws prohibiting cyber attacks. He continued,
“Groundless criticism is irresponsible and unprofessional,
and it will not help to solve the problem” [88].
In 2015 the US government disclosed that hackers had
broken into computers managed by the Office of Personnel
Management and had stolen the Social Security numbers and
other personal information of about 22 million Americans.
The stolen information included personal details provided by
about 20 million Americans who had applied for security
clearances. Officials fretted that this information, which
included drug use and romantic histories, could provide a
foreign power with an extortion tool. The prime suspect in
the attack was Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army
[89, 90].
Anonymous
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a hacktivist as “a
computer hacker whose activity is aimed at promoting a
social or political cause.” Anonymous is a loosely organized
international movement of hacktivists. Individuals who
identify with Anonymous are called Anons.
The profile of Anonymous was raised significantly in 2008
when it confronted the Church of Scientology [91]. After
somebody uploaded to YouTube a video interview of Tom
Cruise produced by the Church of Scientology and meant to
be seen only by its members, the church filed a copyright
violation claim and asked YouTube to remove it. YouTube
complied with the request. In response, Anonymous issued a
press release stating it was going to conduct attacks on the
Church of Scientology “to end the financial exploitation of
its members and protect the right to free speech” [92].
Anonymous members launched DDoS attacks on Scientology
Web sites and worked to keep the Tom Cruise video
available on the Internet. In addition, more than 6,000 Anons
donned Guy Fawkes masks and protested the Church of
Scientology in the streets of 90 cities across North America,
Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.
1
Since then, a series of actions around the world have been
attributed to Anonymous. Here is a sampling.
Operation Payback was a series of DDoS attacks
against the Recording Industry Association of America
(RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA), Indian company Aiplex, and the US Copyright
Office. These attacks were launched in September 2009
after it was revealed that the RIAA and MPAA had
contracted Aiplex to launch DDoS attacks on
BitTorrent sites, including the Pirate Bay [93].
A few months later, the focus of Operation Payback
shifted to PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard after they froze
the transfer of funds from supporters of Julian Assange
to the WikiLeaks organization. The Web sites of all
three of these financial institutions were disrupted by
DDoS attacks [94, 95].
Anonymous played an active role in the Arab Spring
uprisings of 2011. In Tunisia, for example, Anons
launched DDoS attacks on government Web sites,
offered advice to dissidents on how to conceal their
identities online, and helped local activists upload
videos of their protests to the Internet [96].
After the US Department of Justice announced action
against cybervault Mega-upload in January 2012,
Anons launched DDoS attacks on the US Department of
Justice, Universal Music Group, the RIAA, the MPAA,
Broadcast Music Inc., and the FBI [97].
Anons launched a cyber attack on Israeli Web sites on
Holocaust Memorial Day in 2013 to protest Israel’s
treatment of Palestine [98].
Anons claimed responsibility for shutting down the
Web site of the City of Cleveland to protest the killing
of 12-year-old Tamir Rice by a Cleveland police officer
in November 2014 [99].
In January 2015, after a terrorist attack on the Paris
office of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo left 12 dead
and 11 wounded, Anonymous released a video
condemning the attack and pledging to shut down
jihadist Web sites [100].
Dozens of people around the world have been arrested for
their participation in Anonymous cyber attacks, and many
have spent time in prison. Dmitriy Guzner pleaded guilty to
the unauthorized impairment of a protected computer in his
role in the DDoS attacks against the Church of Scientology.
He was sentenced to 366 days in a US federal prison and
ordered to pay $37,500 in restitution [101]. Brian
Mettenbrink was sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to
pay $20,000 in restitution after pleading guilty to
participating in the DDoS attacks against the Church of
Scientology [102]. Chris Doyon was arrested for launching a
DDoS attack on a Santa Cruz County, California, Web site.
He jumped bail and fled to Canada [103]. Briton Jake Davis
pleaded guilty to participating in attacks on Sony Pictures
and the Serious Organised Crime Agency in Great Britain and
was given a 24-month sentence [104].
Ukraine
Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022,
Ukraine was the second-most-frequent target of Russia’s
cyberattacks, after the United States. About a month before
the invasion, the frequency of Russia’s cyber attacks against
Ukraine increased significantly. Microsoft observed
“destructive and relentless” attacks and concluded they were
designed to “disrupt or degrade Ukrainian government and
military functions and undermine the public’s trust in those
same institutions” [105]. Cyber attacks focused on
government computers and computers in the energy,
financial, and IT sectors of the economy. Hundreds of
computers were the targets of “wiper” malware that deleted
data on hard drives and overwrote Master Boot Records,
making the computers unbootable. Russia also initiated
DDoS attacks on Ukrainian government Web sites, financial
institutions, and the broadband service provider Viasat [105].
2
Summary
Computer and network security are important not just to
those who manage the information-technology infrastructure
of corporations and government agencies, but to anyone who
has a personal computer or other devices connected to the
Internet. The more that people rely upon computers and the
Internet of Things, the more opportunities they provide to
organizations that seek to exploit those devices to further
their own aims.
Computer passwords illustrate how computer security is a
trade-off between safety and convenience. Shorter passwords
are easier to remember, and they take less time to enter.
Unfortunately, they are easily cracked. In order to keep their
systems secure, computer users must create longer, more
obscure passwords that are decidedly less convenient. They
should also enable multifactor authentication on their
accounts.
Sometimes criminals get passwords and other sensitive
information directly from computer users. Phishing attacks
are an example of this kind of exploit. Some people “fall” for
phishing attacks because they are accustomed to providing
sensitive information over an Internet connection.
Personal computers can become infected with malware in
many different ways. Even if users remember never to open a
suspect email attachment, their systems may still become
infected. A worm may enter a computer by taking advantage
of a security weakness in the operating system. By simply
visiting a Web site, a computer user may become the target of
a cross-site injection or a drive-by download. That is why it is
important that all personal computer users set up personal
firewalls and keep their systems up-to-date with anti-malware
tools.
Criminals can also make money by co-opting personal
computers and Internet-of-Things devices, turning them into
bots. Bot herders rent huge botnets to those who wish to use
them as launching pads for spamming, phishing attacks, or
distributed denial-of-service attacks. Many Internetconnected devices, such as wireless routers, come with default
administrator passwords. When consumers fail to change
default passwords, they make it easy for malevolent agents to
co-opt devices into botnets.
The recent rise in politically motivated cyber attacks raises
some interesting questions. How vulnerable would the United
States economy be to a cyber attack by a determined foe? At
what point does a cyber attack on another nation become an
act of war?
3
Further Reading, Listening,
and Viewing
Tami Abdollah and Matthew Perrone. “US Warns of
Unusual Cybersecurity Flaw in Heart Devices.”
Associated Press, January 11, 2017.
apnews.com/dc914628d99140a391b8050e571aae05.
Tom Bearden. “Preventing a ‘Cyber-Pearl Harbor.’”
PBS NewsHour, April 16, 2012. 7:45. video.pbs.org.
Mikko Hypponen. “Fighting Viruses, Defending the
Net.” TEDGlobal 2011, July 2011. 17:26.
www.ted.com/talks/mikko_hypponen_fighting_viruses_defendi
Brendan I. Koerner. “The Breach.” Wired, November
2016
James Lyne. “Everyday Cybercrime—and What You
Can Do About It.” TED, February 2013. 17:21.
www.ted.com/talks/james_lyne_everyday_cybercrime_and_wha
Annie Machon (interview). “Anonymous Ops ‘a New
Front in Protest.’” RT, April 7, 2013. 4:18. rt.com/opedge/.
Lily Hay Newman. “Ransomware Hits a Food Supply
Giant—and Underscores a Dire Threat.” WIRED, June
1, 2021. https://www.wired.com/story/jbs-ransomwareattack-underscores-dire-threat/.
J.M. Porup. “Online Voting Is Impossible to Secure. So
Why Are Some Governments Using It?” CSO (Web
site), May 2, 2018.
www.csoonline.com/article/3269297.
Avi Rubin. “All Your Devices Can Be Hacked.” TED
Talk, February 2012. 16:56. www.ted.com/talks/.
David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth. “F.B.I. Identifies
Group Behind Pipeline Hack.” New York Times, May
10, 2021.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/us/politics/pipelinehack-darkside.html.
Ray Suarez. “US Fed Up with China’s Cyber Theft, Say
Analysts.” PBS NewsHour, July 8, 2013. 9:39.
video.pbs.org.
Paul Wagenseil. “Your Router’s Security Stinks: Here’s
How to Fix It.” Tom’s Guide (Web site), May 29,
2018. www.tomsguide.com/us/home-routersecurity,news-19245.html.
Review Questions
1. What is the common meaning of the word “hacker?”
2. Describe three “low-tech” methods that hackers have
used to obtain login names and passwords.
3. Why is it dangerous to surf the Web using an open Wi-
Fi network?
4. What is the difference between a computer virus and a
worm?
5. What is the relationship between spyware and
backdoor Trojans?
6. What is the difference between spyware and adware?
7. How are Trojan horses and drive-by downloads
similar?
8. Why is it dangerous for an email program to open
attachments automatically, without waiting for the user
to select them?
4
9. Give two examples of how criminal organizations have
used the Internet to make money.
10. What is a cyber attack? Give two examples of cyber
attacks that have taken place outside the United States.
11. If converting SCADA systems to the Internet Protocol
increases the risk of a hacker taking control of an
industrial process, why are companies doing just that?
Discussion
Questions
12. In a study done in London, people in subway stations
were offered a cheap pen in return for disclosing their
passwords. About 90 percent offered their passwords in
return for the pen [106]. What can be done to get
people to take security more seriously?
13. The default administrator password on many, if not
most, home network routers never gets changed,
making these computers vulnerable to malware. What
would be the advantages and disadvantages of
requiring the manufacturers of network routers to
create a unique password for every unit they sell?
14. Email viruses are typically launched by people who
modify header information to hide their identity.
Brightmail’s Enrique Salem says that in the future, your
email reader will authenticate the sender before putting
the message in your inbox. That way, you will know
the source of all the emails you read. Alan Nugent of
Novell says, “I’m kind of a fan of eliminating
anonymity if that is the price for security” [107]. Will
eliminating anonymity make computers more secure?
15. Are there conditions under which the release of a
worm, virus, or Trojan horse would be morally
justifiable?
16. Consider a small business that is the target of a
cryptographic ransomware attack. The business does
not have adequate backup files, and the cost of paying
the ransom is much lower than the expected cost of
continuing operations without the encrypted files and
recreating the necessary records. Discuss the morality
of the owner choosing to pay the ransom in order to
recover the business’s files.
17. When his worm program did not perform as expected,
Robert Morris Jr. contacted two old friends from
Harvard to decide what to do next. One of them, Andy
Sudduth, agreed to email an anonymous message
apologizing for the worm and describing how to
protect computers from it, without disclosing Morris as
the creator of the worm [32]. Was this the right thing
for Sudduth to do?
18. Kalamazoo College requires that all computers
connected to the campus network be running up-todate antivirus software. When a student’s computer is
discovered to have a virus, its network connection is
cut until a staff member can remove the virus. If it
turns out that the computer was not running up-to-date
antivirus software, the student is fined $100 [108]. Is
this a morally justifiable policy?
19. Adam and Charlene are good friends. Both attend East
Dakota State University. One day when Adam is off
campus interviewing for a part-time job, someone asks
him how many credit hours of computer science
courses he has completed. Adam calls Charlene and
asks her to access his student records by logging into
the campus mainframe as if she were Adam. He
provides Charlene with his student identification
number and password so that she can do this. Is it
wrong for Adam to share this information with
Charlene? Is it wrong for Charlene to retrieve this
information for Adam?
5
20. Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, and
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology denied
admission to more than 100 business school applicants
because they took an online peek at the status of their
applications. These students learned how to circumvent
the program’s security, and they used this knowledge to
view their files and see if they had been accepted.
Students could see information about their own
application, but could not view the status of other
students’ applications. In many cases the students
learned that no admission decision had yet been made.
Do you feel the response of these universities was
appropriate?
21. Millions of American homes are equipped with wireless
networks. If the network is not made secure, any
nearby computer with a wireless card can use the
network. The range of home wireless networks often
extends into neighboring homes, particularly in
apartment complexes. If your neighbor’s wireless
network extends into your home, is it wrong to use that
network to get free Internet access?
22. Is it morally acceptable to use a denial-of-service attack
to shut down a Web server that distributes child
pornography?
23. Technological determinists argue that technological
development is inevitable. If Butler had not created
Firesheep, someone else would have. According to the
neutrality thesis, every invention can be put to good or
bad uses. Therefore, creators of new technologies bear
no moral responsibility for their inventions. In contrast,
the author argues that people who create a tool making
it easier for someone to do something immoral share
some moral accountability for the misdeeds done by
people using the tool. Which perspective do you find
more compelling?
24. Do you support the actions of Anonymous? Would you
consider becoming an Anon?
25. The United States and Israel cooperated to unleash the
Stuxnet worm, which apparently slowed down Iran’s
nuclear program by damaging centrifuges processing
uranium. Was unleashing the Stuxnet worm morally
justifiable?
In-Class Exercises
26. The FBI obtained a court order for Apple to produce a
version of iOS that would enable the FBI to unlock the
cell phone of Syed Rizwan Farook and search its
contents. Apple refused to comply with the court order.
Divide the class into small groups of about four
students each. Half the groups should come up with
reasons why Apple should have complied with the
court order. Half the groups should come up with
reasons why Apple should have refused to comply with
the court order. After the teams have had a reasonable
amount of time to come up with their reasons, the
teams should share their reasoning.
6
27. Debate this proposition: Those who create
nondestructive malware are doing the computer
industry a favor because the patches created to block
them make computers more secure. To use an analogy,
each virus has the effect of strengthening the immune
systems of the computers it targets.
28. The University of Calgary offered a senior-level
computer science course called “Computer Viruses and
Malware.” The course taught students how to write
viruses, worms, and Trojan horses. It also discussed the
history of computer viruses and taught students how to
block attacks. All course assignments were done on a
closed computer network isolated from the Internet.
Some computer security experts criticized the university
for offering the course. One researcher said, “No one
argues criminology students should commit a murder
to understand how a murderer thinks” [109]. Debate
whether the University of Calgary was wrong to offer
the course.
29. Debate this proposition: It is wrong for a company to
hire a former malicious hacker as a security consultant.
30. A distributed denial-of-service attack makes the Web
site for a top electronic retailer inaccessible for an
entire day. As a result of the attack, nearly a million
customers are inconvenienced, and the retailer loses
millions of dollars in sales to its competitors. Law
enforcement agencies apprehend the person who
launched the attack. Should the punishment be
determined strictly by considering the crime that was
committed, or should the identity of the culprit be
taken into account? If the identity of the perpetrator
should be taken into account, what punishment do you
think would be appropriate if he were:
A teenager who launched the attack out of curiosity
An adult dedicated to fighting the country’s overly
materialistic culture
A member of a terrorist organization attempting to
harm the national economy
31. Divide the class into small groups of about four
students. Half of the groups should come up with
arguments why the United States should work to create
an international ban on cyber attacks, analogous to the
Chemical Weapons Convention that outlaws the
production and use of chemical weapons. The other
half of the groups should come up with arguments why
the United States should strive to become preeminent in
cyber attack technology.
References
[1] Jerry Hildenbrand. “VPNFilter Malware Has Infected a
Million Routers—Here’s What You Need to Know.”
Androidcentral (Web site), June 11, 2018.
www.androidcentral.com/vpnfilter-malware.
[2] Alex Traub. “Kevin Mitnick, Once the ‘Most Wanted
Computer Outlaw,’ Dies at 59.” New York Times, July
20, 2023.
www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/technology/kevinmitnick-dead-hacker.html.
[3] Dan Goodin. “Anatomy of a Hack: How Crackers
Ransack Passwords Like ‘qeadzwrsfxv1331.’” Ars
Technica (Web site), May 27, 2013. arstechnica.com.
[4] William Cheswick. “Rethinking Passwords.”
Communications of the ACM, 52(2): 40–44, February
2013.
7
[5] Mat Honan. “Hacked.” Wired, December 2012.
[6] Marcia Savage. “Mitnick Turns Gamekeeper.”
TechWeb.com, October 30, 2000.
[7] Alex Weinert. “Your Pa$$word Doesn’t Matter.”
Microsoft, July 9, 2019.
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoftentra-azure-ad-blog/your-pa-word-doesn-t-matter/bap/731984.
[8] Melanie Maynes. “One Simple Action You Can Take to
Prevent 99.9 Percent of Attacks on Your Accounts.”
Microsoft, August 20, 2019.
https://www.microsoft.com/enus/security/blog/2019/08/20/one-simple- action-youcan-take-to-prevent-99-9-percent-of-account-attacks/.
[9] Michael Arnone. “Hacker Steals Personal Data on
Foreign Students at U. of Kansas.” Chronicle of Higher
Education, January 24, 2003.
[10] Sara Lipka. “Hacker Breaks into Database for Tracking
International Students at UNLV.” Chronicle of Higher
Education, March 21, 2005.
[11] Dan Carnevale. “Harvard and MIT Join Carnegie
Mellon in Rejecting Applicants Who Broke into
Business-School Networks.” Chronicle of Higher
Education, March 9, 2005.
[12] John P. Mello Jr. “Sesame Street Hacked, Porn Posted.”
PCWorld, October 17, 2011.
[13] Michael S. Schmidt and Richard Péña. “F.B.I. Treating
San Bernardino Attack as Terrorism Case.” New York
Times, December 4, 2015.
[14] Government’s Motion to Compel Apple Inc. to Comply
with This Court’s February 16, 2016 Order Compelling
Assistance in Search. US District Court for the Central
District of California. February 19, 2016.
www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/file/826836/download.
[15] Tim Cook. “A Message to Our Customers.” Apple
(public statement), February 16, 2016.
www.apple.com/customer-letter/.
[16] “U.S. Says It Has Unlocked iPhone Without Apple.”
New York Times, March 28, 2016.
www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/technology/appleiphone-fbi-justice-department-case.html.
[17] Ellen Nakashima. “Inspector General: FBI Didn’t Fully
Explore Whether It Could Hack a Terrorist’s iPhone
before Asking Court to Order Apple to Unlock It.”
Washington Post, March 28, 2018.
[18] Eric Butler. “Firesheep.” {codebutler} (blog), October
24, 2010. codebutler.com.
[19] Bob Brown. “Father of Firesheep Fires Away After
Wild Week in WiFi Security.” NetworkWorld,
November 2, 2011. www.networkworld.com.
[20] Tom Anderson. “Firesheep in Wolves’ Clothing:
Extension Lets You Hack into Twitter, Facebook
Accounts Easily.” TechCrunch, October 24, 2010.
techcrunch.com.
[21] Jason Fitzpatrick. “Firesheep Sniffs Out Facebook and
Other User Credentials on Wi-Fi Hotspots.” Lifehacker
(blog), October 25, 2010. lifehacker.com.
[22] Gregg Keizer. “How to Protect Against Firesheep
Attacks.” Computerworld, October 26, 2010.
www.computerworld.com.
[23] Sharon Machlis. “How to Hijack Facebook Using
Firesheep.” PCWorld, October 30, 2010.
www.pcworld.com.
8
[24] Eric Butler. “Firesheep, a Week Later: Ethics and
Legality.” {codebutler} (blog), November 1, 2010.
codebutler.com.
[25] Alex Rice. “A Continued Commitment to Security.”
The Facebook Blog, January 26, 2011.
blog.facebook.com.
[26] Paul Ducklin. “Twitter Goes Secure—Say Goodbye to
Firesheep with ‘Always use HTTPS’ Option.”
nakedsecurity (blog), March 16, 2011.
nakedsecurity.sophos.com.
[27] Jessica Goodman. “Firesheep, What Color Is Your
Hat?” FeelingElephant’s Weblog, November 30, 2010.
feelingelephants.wordpress.com.
[28] David Ferbrache. A Pathology of Computer Viruses.
Springer-Verlag, London, England, 1992.
[29] Eurostat. “Nearly One Third of Internet Users in the
EU27 Caught a Computer Virus; 84% of Internet Users
Use IT Security Software for Protection” (news release).
February 7, 2011. europa.eu.
[30] “Google Warns TWO MILLION Users Their
Computers Have Been Infected with a Virus.” Mail
Online, July 21, 2011. www.dailymail.co.uk.
[31] John Brunner. The Shockwave Rider. Harper & Row,
New York, NY, 1975.
[32] Katie Hafner and John Markoff. Cyberpunk: Outlaws
and Hackers on the Computer Frontier. Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY, 1991.
[33] Paul Graham. “The Submarine.” April 2005.
www.paulgraham.com.
[34] Steve Sechrist. “State of Security: China’s Trojan
Horse.” Display Daily, March 18, 2008.
displaydaily.com.
[35] Roland Dela Paz. “Ransomware Attacks Continue to
Spread Across Europe.” Trend Micro, March 8, 2012.
blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-securityintelligence/ransomware-attacks- continue-to-spreadacross-europe/.
[36] “New Internet Scam: ‘Ransomware’ Locks Computers,
Demands Payment.” Federal Bureau of Investigation,
August 9, 2012.
[37] Sean Gallagher. “FBI Says Crypto Ransomware Has
Raked in > $18 Million for Cybercriminals.” Ars
Technica, June 25, 2015. arstechnica.com/informationtechnology/2015/06/fbi-says-crypto- ransomware-hasraked-in-18-million-for-cybercriminals/.
[38] Webroot. “Spyware Infection Rates Return to Peak
2004 Levels According to Webroot State of Spyware
Report.” August 15, 2006. www.webroot.com.
[39] Scott Berinato. “Attack of the Bots.” Wired, November
2006.
[40] Cybersecurity Unit. “Securing Your ‘Internet of Things’
Devices.” US Department of Justice, July 2017.
www.justice.gov/criminalccips/page/file/984001/download.
[41] Information Solutions Group. “Syntonic 2016
Employer Report: BYOD Usage in the Enterprise,”
Syntonic Inc., Summer 2016. syntonic.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Syntonic-2016-BYOD-Usagein-the- Enterprise.pdf.
[42] Nate Lord. “The Ultimate Guide to BYOD Security:
Overcoming Challenges, Creating Effective Policies, and
Mitigating Risks to Maximize Benefits.” Digital
Guardian, February 27, 2018.
digitalguardian.com/blog/ultimate-guide-byod-securityovercoming- challenges-creating-effective-policies-andmitigating.
9
[43] “S. Korea Probes Cyberattack on Digital Currency
Exchange.” Yonhap News Agency, July 3, 2017.
english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2017/07/03/52/0302000000
[44] Koen van Gelder. “E-commerce Worldwide — Statistics
& Facts.” December 21, 2023. www.statista.com.
[45] Greg Aaron and Rod Rasmussen. “Global Phishing
Survey 2H2014: Trends and Domain Name Use.”
APWG Internet Policy Committee, May 27, 2015.
www.apwg.org.
[46] Edward Skoudis. “Evolutionary Trends in Cyberspace.”
In Cyberpower and National Security, edited by
Franklin D. Kramer, Stuart H. Starr, and Larry K.
Wentz, pp. 163–164. Potomac Books, Dulles, Virginia,
2009.
[47] Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai. “How Hackers Broke
into John Podesta and Colin Powell’s Gmail Accounts.”
Motherboard, October 20, 2016.
motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg7xjb/howhackers-broke-into-john- podesta-and-colin-powellsgmail-accounts.
[48] Lee Fang and Naomi LaChance. “Colin Powell Urged
Hillary Clinton’s Team Not to Scapegoat Him for Her
Private Server, Leaked Emails Reveal.” The Interceptor,
September 13, 2016.
theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/.
[49] CERT Coordination Center. “Denial of Service
Attacks.” June 4, 2001.
www.cert.org/tech_tips/denial_of_service.html.
[50] Mike Toner. “Cyberterrorism Danger Lurking.”
Atlanta Journal and Constitution, November 2, 2001.
[51] Toni O’Loughlin. “Cyber Terrorism Reaches New
Heights.” Australian Financial Review, April 4, 2003.
[52] Sam Thielman and Chris Johnston. “Major Cyber
Attack Disrupts Internet Service Across Europe and
US.” Guardian, October 21, 2016.
www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/21/ddosattack-dyn-internet-denial-service.
[53] Scott Hilton. “Dyn Analysis Summary of Friday
October 21 Attack.” Dyn (public statement), October
26, 2016. dyn.com/blog/dyn-analysis-summary-offriday-october-21-attack/.
[54] David E. Sanger and Nicole Periroth. “A New Era of
Internet Attacks Powered by Everyday Devices.” New
York Times, October 22, 2016.
www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/us/politics/a-new-era-ofinternet-attacks-powered-by-everyday-devices.html.
[55] “Zombie Master Jeanson Ancheta Pleads Guilty.”
Spam Daily News, January 23, 2006.
www.spamdailynews.com.
[56] “Zombie Master Jeanson Ancheta Sentenced to 5 Years
in Prison.” Spam Daily News, May 9, 2006.
www.spamdailynews.com.
0
[57] Robert Lemos. “Blue Security Folds under Spammer’s
Wrath.” SecurityFocus (Web site), May 17, 2006.
www.securityfocus.com.
[58] Kim Zetter. “TJX Hacker Charged with Heartland,
Hannaford Breaches.” Threat Level: Privacy, Crime and
Security Online, Wired, August 17, 2009.
www.wired.com.
[59] David Morrison. “Albert Gonzalez, Mastermind
Heartland Hacker, Gets 20 Years.” Credit Union
Times, April 7, 2010. www.cutimes.com.
[60] “Avalanche Botnet Moves from Distributing Spam to
Zeus Lures.” SC Magazine, October 25, 2010.
www.scmagazineuk.com.
[61] Joe Walsh. “Ransomware Attack Shuts Down Massive
East Coast Gasoline Pipeline.” Forbes, May 8, 2021.
www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/05/08/ransomwareattack-shuts-down-massive-east-coast-gasolinepipeline/.
[62] Natasha Bertrand, Evan Perez, Zachary Cohen, Geneva
Sand s, and Josh Campbell. “Colonial Pipeline Did Pay
Ransom to Hackers, Sources Now Say.” CNN, May
13, 2021.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/12/politics/colonialpipeline-ransomware-payment/index.html.
[63] William Turton, Michael Riley, and Jennifer Jacobs.
“Colonial Pipeline Paid Hackers Nearly $5 Million in
Ransom.” Bloomberg, May 13, 2021.
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-0513/colonial-pipeline-paid-hackers-nearly-5-million-inransom.
[64] Matt Egan. “Gas Stations in the Southeast Run Out of
Gas as People Panic Buy Fuel.” CNN, May 12, 2021.
www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/business/gas-shortagecolonial-pipeline/index.html.
[65] Christopher Bing, Joseph Menn, and Sarah N. Lynch.
“U.S. Seizes $2.3 Million in Bitcoin Paid to Colonial
Pipeline Hackers.” Reuters, June 7, 2021.
www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-announcerecovery-millions-colonial-pipeline-ransomware-attack2021-06-07/.
[66] Kevin O’Shea. “Cyber Attack Investigative Tools and
Technologies.” Institute for Security Technology Studies
at Dartmouth College, May 7, 2003.
www.ists.dartmouth.edu.
[67] Joshua Davis. “Hackers Take Down the Most Wired
Country in Europe.” Wired, August 21, 2007.
www.wired.com.
[68] Mark Lander and John Markoff. “Digital Fears Emerge
after Data Siege in Estonia.” New York Times, May 29,
2007. www.nytimes.com.
[69] “A Look at Estonia’s Cyber Attack in 2007.”
Associated Press, July 8, 2009. www.msnbc.msn.com.
[70] John Markoff. “Before the Gunfire, Cyberattacks.”
New York Times, August 12, 2008. www.nytimes.com.
[71] Kevin Coleman. “Cyber War 2.0—Russia v. Georgia.”
Defense Tech (Web site), August 13, 2008.
defensetech.org.
[72] “War, Redefined.” Los Angeles Times, August 17,
2008. articles.latimes.com.
[73] Jared Newman. “Twitter Crippled by Denial-of-Service
Attack.” PCWorld Blogs, August 6, 2009.
www.pcworld.com.
1
[74] Elinor Mills. “Twitter, Facebook Attack Targeted One
User.” CNet News (Web site), August 6, 2009.
news.cnet.com.
[75] Graham Cluley. “Was Twitter Denial-of-Service
Targeting Anti-Russian Blogger?” Graham Cluley’s
Blog, August 7, 2009. www.sophos.com.
[76] “A Chinese Ghost in the Machine?” Economist, April
4, 2009.
[77] John Markoff. “Tracking Cyberspies Through the Web
Wilderness.” New York Times, May 12, 2009.
[78] Choe Sang-Hun and John Markoff. “Cyberattacks Jam
Government and Commercial Web Sites in US and
South Korea.” New York Times, July 9, 2009.
[79] John Markoff. “Internet’s Anonymity Makes
Cyberattack Hard to Trace.” New York Times, July 17,
2009.
[80] “Hacking the Industrial Network.” Phoenix Contact
Inc., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. www.isa.org.
[81] “Siemens SCADA Systems Under Attack by
Information Stealing Worm.” Help Net Security, July
20, 2010. www.net-security.org.
[82] “Iran Confirms Stuxnet Worm Halted Centrifuges.”
CBS News, November 29, 2010. www.cbsnews.com.
[83] John Markoff. “Malware Aimed at Iran Hit Five Sites,
Report Says.” New York Times, February 11, 2011.
www.nytimes.com.
[84] Christopher Williams. “Israeli Video Shows Stuxnet as
One of Its Successes.” Telegraph, February 15, 2011.
www.telegraph.co.uk.
[85] David Sanger. “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of
Cyberattacks against Iran.” New York Times, June 1,
2012. www.nytimes.com.
[86] “APT1: Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage
Units.” Mandiant Corporation, February 18, 2013.
www.mandiant.com.
[87] David E. Sanger, David Barboza, and Nicole Perlroth.
“Chinese Army Unit Is Seen as Tied to Hacking Against
U.S.” New York Times, February 18, 2013.
[88] T.P. “Hello, Unit 61398.” Economist, February 19,
2013.
[89] David E. Sanger and Julie Hirschfeld Davis. “Hacking
Linked to China Exposes Millions of U.S. Workers.”
New York Times, June 4, 2015.
www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/breach-in-a-federalcomputer-system-exposes-personnel-data.html.
[90] Patricia Zengerle and Megan Cassella. “Millions More
Americans Hit by Government Personnel Data Hack.”
Reuters, July 9, 2015. www.reuters.com/article/uscybersecurity-usa/millions-more-americans- hit-bygovernment-personnel-data-hackidUSKCN0PJ2M420150709.
[91] Brian B. Kelly. “Investing in a Centralized
Cybersecurity Infrastructure: Why ‘Hacktivism’ Can
and Should Influence Cybersecurity Reform.” Boston
University Law Review, 92(4): 1663–1711, October
2012.
[92] PRLog. “Internet Group Anonymous Declares ‘War on
Scientology’” (press release). January 21, 2008.
www.prlog.org.
2
[93] John Leyden. “4chan Launched DDoS against
Entertainment Industry.” Register, September 20, 2010.
www.theregister.co.uk.
[94] Fahmida Y. Rashid. “PayPal, PostFinance Hit by DoS
Attacks, Counter-Attack in Progress.” eWeek,
December 6, 2010. www.eweek.com.
[95] Esther Addley and Josh Halliday. “WikiLeaks
Supporters Disrupt Visa and MasterCard Sites in
‘Operation Payback.’” Guardian, December 8, 2010.
www.guardian.co.uk.
[96] Yasmine Ryan. “Anonymous and the Arab Uprisings.”
Al Jazeera, May 19, 2011. www.aljazeera.com.
[97] “Internet Strikes Back: Anonymous’ Operation
Megaupload Explained.” RT, January 20, 2012.
rt.com.
[98] Adam Clark Estes. “Anonymous Hits Israel with a
Massive Cyber Attack, Israel Attacks Back.” Atlantic
Wire, April 7, 2013.
[99] David Boroff. “Grieving Dad, Anonymous Lash Out at
Cleveland Cops Following Shooting Death of Boy, 12,
Armed with BB Gun.” New York Daily News,
November 24, 2014. www.nydailynews.com.
[100] Keely Lockhart. “‘Hacktivist’ Group Anonymous Says
It Will Avenge Charlie Hebdo Attacks by Shutting
Down Jihadist Websites.” Telegraph, January 10, 2015.
www.telegraph.co.uk.
[101] Nic Corbett. “Verona Teen Sentenced to Year in Prison
for Online Attack of Scientology.” Star-Ledger, New
Jersey, November 18, 2009. www.nj.com.
[102] John Leyden. “Second Man Jailed over Scientology
DDoS Attacks.” Register, May 25, 2010.
www.theregister.co.uk.
[103] Nate Anderson. “Anon on the Run: How Commander
X Jumped Bail and Fled to Canada.” Ars Technica
(Web site), December 11, 2012. arstechnica.com.
[104] Dave Lee. “Jake Davis: Freed Hacker Faces Strict Tech
Rules.” BBC, June 24, 2013. www.bbc.co.uk.
[105] “An Overview of Russia’s Cyberattack Activity in
Ukraine.” Digital Security Unit, Microsoft, April 27,
2022.
https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE
[106] John Leyden. “Office Workers Give Away Passwords
for a Cheap Pen.” Register, April 17, 2003.
www.theregister.co.uk.
[107] “Fighting the Worms of Mass Destruction.” Economist:
65–67, November 29, 2003.
[108] Kalamazoo College Information Technology Services.
“Computer Virus Policy.” Accessed July 29, 2011.
reason.kzoo.edu.
[109] Brock Read. “How to Write a Computer Virus, for
College Credit.” Chronicle of Higher Education,
50(19): A33–A34, January 16, 2004.
Chapter 8
Computer
Reliability
3
8.1 Introduction
ON DECEMBER 21, 2022, A SEVERE WINTER STORM
IN THE UNITED STATES caused Southwest Airlines to
cancel many flights. The airline’s IT system was unable to
cope with the high number of changes that needed to be
made to the schedules of its pilots and flight attendants, and
more than 16,700 flights had to be canceled between
December 21 and December 31 before normal operations
could result. The flight cancellations disrupted the holiday
travel plans of hundreds of thousands of customers and cost
the airline $800 million in lost revenues [1].
A computer outage affected 8,000 company-operated
Starbucks stores in the United States and Canada on April
24, 2015. Some stores closed early. Others stayed open but
could only accept cash for purchases. A few decided to give
away free coffee or tea to appease their customers [2].
On August 1, 2012, Knight Capital decided to test its new
software for automatic stock trades. Due to a bug in the
software, it began engaging in trades where it bought stock at
the (higher) asking price and immediately sold the same stock
at the (lower) bidding price. In only 45 minutes, the trading
program had generated $440 million in losses for Knight
Capital, driving the firm to the brink of insolvency [3].
Increasingly, we depend upon computers and computerized
systems to facilitate our daily activities. They are an integral
part of modern communication, transportation, retail,
banking, finance, and health-care systems. When
computerized systems work correctly, they save us time and
money and enable us to accomplish a great deal in a day.
When they fail, the benefits can turn into harms. Failures of
computer-driven systems can result in lost time, lost money,
and in extreme cases, injury or even death.
The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize you with various
ways in which computerized systems have proven to be
unreliable. Systems typically have many components, of
which the computer is just one. A well engineered system can
tolerate the malfunction of any single component without
causing harm. Unfortunately, there are many examples of
systems in which the computer or the computer-human
interface was a weak link and an error led to harm. Through
a variety of examples, you will gain a greater appreciation for
the complexity of building a reliable computerized system.
4
Another important area of concern is bias exhibited by
computerized decision-making systems powered by AI. We
consider a half dozen examples of algorithmic bias exhibited
by deployed systems, and we explore why “fairness” can be a
difficult goal for a system designer to achieve.
8.2 Data-Entry or
Data-Retrieval
Errors
Sometimes computerized systems fail because the wrong data
have been entered into them or because people incorrectly
interpret the data they retrieve. In this section, we give several
examples of wrong actions being taken due to errors in data
entry or data retrieval.
8.2.1 Disenfranchised
Voters
In the November 2000 general election, Florida disqualified
thousands of voters because preelection screening identified
them as people who had been convicted of felonies. The
records in the computer database, however, were incorrect;
the voters had been charged with misdemeanors.
Nevertheless, they were forbidden from voting. This error
may have affected the outcome of the presidential election
[4].
8.2.2 False Arrests
As we saw in Chapter 6, the databases of the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) contain records related to stolen
automobiles, missing persons, wanted persons, suspected
terrorists, and much more. There have been numerous stories
of police making false arrests based on information they
retrieved from the NCIC. Here are three.
Sheila Jackson Stossier, an airline flight attendant, was
arrested at the New Orleans airport by police who confused
her with Shirley Jackson, who was wanted in Texas. She
spent one night in jail and was detained for five days [5].
California police, relying on information from the NCIC,
twice arrested and jailed Roberto Hernandez as a suspect in a
Chicago burglary case. The first time he was jailed for 12
days, and the second time he was held for a week before he
was freed. They had confused him with another Roberto
Hernandez, who had the same height and weight. Both
Hernandezes had brown hair, brown eyes, and tattoos on
their left arms. They also had the same birthday, and their
Social Security numbers differed by only a single digit [6].
Someone used personal information about Michigan resident
Terry Dean Rogan to obtain a California driver’s license
using his name. After the person with the falsified driver’s
license was arrested for two homicides and two robberies,
police entered information about these crimes into the NCIC
under his false identity. Over a period of 14 months, the real
Terry Dean Rogan was arrested five times by Los Angeles
police, three times at gunpoint, even though he and Michigan
police had tried to get the NCIC records corrected after his
first arrest. Rogan sued the Los Angeles Police Department
and was awarded $55,000 [5].
5
8.2.3 Utilitarian Analysis:
Accuracy of NCIC Records
Stepping away from a requirement of the Privacy Act of
1974, the Justice Department announced in March 2003 that
it would no longer require the FBI to ensure the accuracy of
information about criminals and crime victims before
entering it in the NCIC database [7].
Should the US government take responsibility for the
accuracy of the information stored in NCIC databases?
The Department of Justice argues that it is impractical for it
to be responsible for the information in the NCIC database
[8]: Much of the information that gets entered into the
database is provided by other law enforcement and
intelligence agencies. The FBI has no way of verifying that all
the information is accurate, relevant, and complete. Even
when the information is coming from inside the FBI, agents
should be able to use their discretion to determine which
information may be useful in criminal investigations. If the
FBI strictly followed the provisions of the Privacy Act and
verified the accuracy of every record entered into the NCIC,
the amount of information in the database would be greatly
curtailed. The database would be a much less useful tool for
law-enforcement agencies. The result could be a decrease in
the number of criminals arrested by law-enforcement
agencies.
Privacy advocates counter that the accuracy of the NCIC
databases is now more important than ever, because an
increasing number of records are stored in these databases.
As more erroneous records are put into the database, the
probability of innocent US citizens being falsely arrested also
increases.
Which argument is stronger? Let’s focus on one of the oldest
NCIC databases: the database of stolen vehicles. The total
amount of harm caused to society by automobile theft is
great. Over one million automobiles are stolen in the United
States every year. Victims of car theft are subjected to
emotional stress, may sustain a financial loss, and can spend
a lot of time trying to recover or replace the vehicle. In
addition, the prevalence of automobile theft harms everyone
who owns a car by raising insurance rates. In the past car
thieves could reduce the probability that a stolen car would
be recovered by transporting it across a state line, but the
NCIC database contains information about stolen vehicles
throughout the United States, and it has enabled lawenforcement officials to identify cars stolen anywhere in the
nation.
At the present time, just over half of all stolen vehicles are
recovered. If we make the conservative estimate that the
NCIC has increased the percentage of recovered cars by just
20 percent, more than 100,000 additional cars are being
returned to their owners each year. Each recovery has several
benefits. First, the car is returned to its owner, who doesn’t
have to go through the hassle of settling an insurance claim
and getting a new vehicle. Second, by returning the car to its
owner, the police make sure that “crime does not pay” and
may actually apprehend a criminal, which should reduce the
number of cars stolen in the future. We assign a total value of
$5,000 to the benefit of returning a single stolen car to its
owner. Multiplying $5,000 by 100,000, the increase in the
number of cars attributed to the NCIC stolen-vehicle
database, we determine the annual positive impact of the
NCIC stolen-vehicle database to be $500,000,000.
Now let’s consider the harmful consequences of the database.
If an error in the NCIC stolen-car database leads to a false
arrest, the harm caused to the innocent driver is great.
However, after many years there are only a few stories of
false arrests stemming from errors in the NCIC stolen-car
database. Suppose there is one false arrest per year. Based on
the case of Terry Dean Rogan presented earlier, we assign a
total value of −$55,000 to the harm caused per false arrest.
6
Adding up the benefits and the harms caused by the NCIC
stolen-vehicle database, we determine the operation of the
database results in an annual total net increase in the
happiness of the affected parties of $499,945,000. If the
NCIC stolen-vehicle database did not exist, the benefit and
the harm would both be zero, meaning there would be no net
increase in the happiness of the affected parties. Comparing
these two alternatives, we conclude the creation and
maintenance of this database has been the right course of
action.
8.3 Software and
Billing Errors
Even if the data entered into a computer are correct, the
system may still produce the wrong result or collapse entirely
if there are errors in the computer programs manipulating the
data. Newspapers are full of stories about software bugs or
“glitches.” Here is a selection of stories that have appeared in
print.
8.3.1 Errors Leading to
System Malfunctions
Linda Brooks of Minneapolis, Minnesota, opened her mail
on July 21, 2001, and found a phone bill for $57,346.20. A
bug in Qwest’s billing software caused it to charge some
customers as much as $600 per minute for the use of their
cell phones. About 1.4 percent of Qwest’s customers, 14,000
in all, received incorrect bills. A Qwest spokesperson said the
bug was in a newly installed billing system [9].
The US Department of Agriculture implemented new
livestock price-reporting guidelines after discovering that
software errors had caused the USDA to understate the prices
meatpackers were receiving for beef. Since beef producers
and packers negotiate cattle contracts based on the USDA
price reports, the errors cost beef producers between $15 and
$20 million [10].
In 1996 a software error at the US Postal Service resulted in
two weeks’ worth of mail addressed to the Patent and
Trademark Office being returned to the senders. In all,
50,000 pieces of mail were returned [11].
Between September 2008 and May 2009, hundreds of
families living in public housing in New York City were
charged too much rent because of an error in the program
that calculated their monthly bills. For nine months, the New
York City Housing Authority did not take seriously the
renters’ complaints that they were being overcharged.
Instead, it took to court many of the renters who did not
make the higher payments and threatened them with eviction
[12].
In California in 2010 about 450 people who were
incarcerated and characterized as exhibiting a “high risk of
violence” were mistakenly released as part of a program
meant to reduce prison overcrowding. California officials
could not return any of them to prison or put them on
supervised parole because they had already been granted
“nonrevocable parole” [13].
7
8.3.2 Errors Leading to
System Failures
On the first day that a new, fully computerized ambulance
dispatch system became operational in the city of London,
people making emergency calls were put on hold for up to 30
minutes, with the system losing track of some calls, and
ambulances took up to three hours to respond. As many as
20 people died because ambulances did not arrive in time
[14].
Japan’s air traffic control system went down for an hour on
the morning of March 1, 2003, delaying departures for
hours. The backup system failed at the same time as the main
system, which was out of commission for four hours.
Airports kept in touch via telephone, and no passengers were
put at risk. However, some flights were delayed over two
hours, and 32 domestic flights had to be canceled [15].
A new laboratory computer system at Los Angeles
County+USC Medical Center became backlogged the day
after it was turned on. For several hours on both April 16
and April 17, 2003, emergency room doctors told the County
of Los Angeles to stop sending ambulances, because the
doctors could not get access to the laboratory results they
needed. “It’s almost like practicing Third World medicine,”
said Dr. Amanda Garner. “We rely so much on our
computers and our first-world technology that we were
almost blinded” [16].
In August 2005, the passengers on a Malaysia Airlines flight
from Perth, Australia, to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, suddenly
found themselves on a roller-coaster–like ride seven miles
above the Indian Ocean. When the Boeing 777 unexpectedly
began a rapid climb, the pilot disconnected the autopilot, but
it took him 45 seconds to regain control of the jet. The plane
zoomed upward, downward, and then upward a second time
before leveling out. After an investigation, Boeing reported
that a software error had caused the flight computers to
receive faulty information about the plane’s speed and
acceleration. In addition, another error had caused the flight
computers to fail to respond immediately to the pilot’s
commands [17].
A software problem forced the NASDAQ stock exchange to
shut down for three hours in 2013. Two years later, the New
York Stock Exchange halted trading for nearly four hours
because of a computer-related “configuration problem” [18,
19].
At the Black Hat conference in Las Vegas in 2011, computer
security researcher Jay Radcliffe demonstrated how he could
wirelessly hack into and control the insulin pump he was
wearing, giving him the ability to change the amount of
insulin it was dispensing. According to Radcliffe, the only
information a hacker would need to take control of a
particular pump is the pump’s serial number [20].
In July 2015, two researchers demonstrated to a journalist
how they could hack wirelessly into a Jeep Cherokee
equipped with a touch screen and Uconnect software and
gain control of the vehicle’s vital systems. As the journalist,
who had consented to the experiment, drove a Cherokee
around St. Louis, the hackers, sitting at a laptop computer 10
miles away, took control of the SUV’s climate control system,
radio, windshield wipers, transmission, and brakes [21]. All
Chrysler vehicles from model years 2013 through 2015
equipped with touch screens and Uconnect software had the
security vulnerability. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration officials insisted that Fiat Chrysler announce
a formal safety recall of 1.4 million affected vehicles to
highlight to owners the importance of installing a software
patch [22].
8
8.3.3 Analysis: E-Retailer
Posts Wrong Price, Refuses
to Deliver
Amazon.com shut down its British Web site on March 19,
2003, after a software error led it to offer iPAQ handheld
computers for 7 pounds instead of the correct price of about
275 pounds. Before Amazon.com shut down the site,
electronic bargain hunters had flocked to Amazon.com’s Web
site, some of them ordering as many as 10 iPAQs [23].
Amazon said that customers who ordered at the mistaken
price should not expect delivery unless they paid the
difference between the advertised price and the actual price.
An Amazon.com spokesperson said, “In our Pricing and
Availability Policy, we state that where an item’s correct price
is higher than our stated price, we contact the customer
before dispatching. Customers will be offered the opportunity
either to cancel their order or to place new orders for the
item at the correct price” [24].
Was Amazon.com wrong to refuse to fill the orders of the
people who bought iPAQs for 7 pounds?
Let’s analyze the problem from a rule-utilitarian point of
view. We can imagine a moral rule of the form, “A person or
organization wishing to sell a product must always honor the
advertised price.” What would happen if this rule were
universally followed? More time and effort would be spent
proofreading advertisements, whether printed or electronic.
Organizations responsible for publishing the advertisements
in newspapers, magazines, and Web sites would also take
more care to ensure no errors were introduced. There is a
good chance companies would take out insurance policies to
guard against the catastrophic losses that could result from a
typo. To pay for these additional costs, the prices of the
products sold by these companies would be higher. The
proposed rule would harm every consumer who ended up
paying more for products. The rule would benefit the few
consumers who took advantage of misprints to get good
deals on certain goods. We conclude the proposed moral rule
has more harms than benefits, and Amazon.com did the right
thing by refusing to ship the iPAQs.
We could argue, from a Kantian point of view, that the
knowledgeable consumers who ordered the iPAQs did
something wrong. The correct price was 275 pounds; the
advertised price was 7 pounds. While electronic products
may go on sale, retailers simply do not drop the price of their
goods by 97.5 percent, even when they are being put on
clearance. If consumers understood the advertised price was
an error, then they were taking advantage of Amazon.com’s
stockholders by ordering the iPAQ before the error was
corrected. They were not acting “in good faith.”
8.4 Notable
Software System
Failures
In this section we shift our focus to complicated devices or
systems controlled at least in part by computers. An
embedded system is a computer used as a component of a
larger system. You can find microprocessor-based embedded
systems in microwave ovens, thermostats, automobiles,
traf